55528 réponses à ce sujet

[SubAstris]

TSA_383 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

One thing I have been unable to get my head around is this: With IT, the Catalyst tries to convince Shepard that Destroy is the worst option by saying that EDI and the Geth will die, and also that "even you (Shepard) is partly synthetic"- it seems clear that this is a fairly ambiguous statement. The Catalyst never says, "Shepard, you will certainly die", but perhaps gives a hint that he will, or, as I believe, he is saying his life will be worse without synthetics but it won't be impossible for him to survive. Regardless, it is not entirely clear what he means. The question is why. Why wouldn't the Catalyst want to tell Shepard straight that he will die? Surely the death of EDI and the Geth with Shepard dead aswell is worse and less appealing than the same things happening but him/her being alive? After all, what he is saying here is a lie intended to put you off destroy (according to IT)...

You mean the controlling force of the reapers might have reason to be slightly dishonest towards shepard in order to dissuade him/her from seeking to destroy them?

I'm just saying under IT there was no reason not to state as fact that Shepard would die (and would fit his motivations better) than what we actually got, which is the Catalyst trying to make it ambiguous and sound not as bad.

[SubAstris]

comrade gando wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

RavenEyry wrote...

They've pretty much said IT was an intended interpretation already. Whether they plan to expand on it or not is what they refuse to say.

They never said it was intended, merely that it is possible for fans to draw their own conclusions on what the story means. They see IT as valid, as they would many other theories, like "Shepard has been dreaming the whole of the trilogy", whatever makes fans happy

speaking of dreaming I almost forgot, the very last thing we see in all endings is an inexplicable scene with starchild and some old guy *or asari it looks like in refuse*, telling stories about "the shepard". so the whole series was just made up? doesn't help it's playing vigil in the background like it's supposed to be a touching scene or something. well it's far from touching, it's confusing and leaves a final sour yellow taste in my mouth. then a self-congratulatory message by bioware. what a bunch of clowns, they BETTER be trolling.

No, it wasn't made up. It's not that confusing considering that it's not meant to be part of the game, it's almost an aside, an acknowledgement of their inspiration for the game

[lex0r11]

SubAstris wrote...

[...]

I'm just saying under IT there was no reason not to state as fact that Shepard would die (and would fit his motivations better) than what we actually got, which is the Catalyst trying to make it ambiguous and sound not as bad.

But it is the worst choice. It's not just the synthetic mass murder.

"The peace will not last"

"Soon your children will create synthetics"

[paxxton]

MegumiAzusa wrote...

paxxton wrote...

2 - Can the limit be exceeded then?

If they would split up the DLC in more DLCs.
They could have done something like EC - Base, EC - Red, EC - Green, EC - Blue

Cool.

[SubAstris]

lex0r11 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

[...]

I'm just saying under IT there was no reason not to state as fact that Shepard would die (and would fit his motivations better) than what we actually got, which is the Catalyst trying to make it ambiguous and sound not as bad.

But it is the worst choice. It's not just the synthetic mass murder.

"The peace will not last"

"Soon your children will create synthetics"

That's irrelevant to the point I'm making. If the Catalyst wanted he could emphatically state that Shep would die. I guess it comes down to what you think is better: Shepard alive or dead. If you think alive, then it doesn't really make much sense

[TSA_383]

SubAstris wrote...

TSA_383 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

One thing I have been unable to get my head around is this: With IT, the Catalyst tries to convince Shepard that Destroy is the worst option by saying that EDI and the Geth will die, and also that "even you (Shepard) is partly synthetic"- it seems clear that this is a fairly ambiguous statement. The Catalyst never says, "Shepard, you will certainly die", but perhaps gives a hint that he will, or, as I believe, he is saying his life will be worse without synthetics but it won't be impossible for him to survive. Regardless, it is not entirely clear what he means. The question is why. Why wouldn't the Catalyst want to tell Shepard straight that he will die? Surely the death of EDI and the Geth with Shepard dead aswell is worse and less appealing than the same things happening but him/her being alive? After all, what he is saying here is a lie intended to put you off destroy (according to IT)...

You mean the controlling force of the reapers might have reason to be slightly dishonest towards shepard in order to dissuade him/her from seeking to destroy them?

I'm just saying under IT there was no reason not to state as fact that Shepard would die (and would fit his motivations better) than what we actually got, which is the Catalyst trying to make it ambiguous and sound not as bad.

The Catalyst uses slightly circuitous language rather than lie to the player outright.
You have to look at what's implied.

"Even you are partly synthetic" - It wants you to think that you will die.
"You will control us, but you will lose everything you have" - The implication is that you will die but also control the reapers (eh?) but of course there are much more sinister implications.

As for synthesis - the "final evolution of life"

We know we're talking to a reaper presence (something ITers pointed out months ago), and we know precisely what the reapers see as the "final evolution of life" and what their idea of synthesis is. They've been looking to achieve synthesis in every cycle so far, so with this choice you're effectively aligning yourself to their goals.


Think about it. Which choices are a "solution" as far as the catalyst is concerned?
Do you really want to make a choice that is a solution from the perspective of a reaper?

Modifié par TSA_383, 23 juillet 2012 - 03:38 .

[RavenEyry]

SubAstris wrote...

One thing I have been unable to get my head around is this: With IT, the Catalyst tries to convince Shepard that Destroy is the worst option by saying that EDI and the Geth will die, and also that "even you (Shepard) is partly synthetic"- it seems clear that this is a fairly ambiguous statement. The Catalyst never says, "Shepard, you will certainly die", but perhaps gives a hint that he will, or, as I believe, he is saying his life will be worse without synthetics but it won't be impossible for him to survive. Regardless, it is not entirely clear what he means. The question is why. Why wouldn't the Catalyst want to tell Shepard straight that he will die? Surely the death of EDI and the Geth with Shepard dead aswell is worse and less appealing than the same things happening but him/her being alive? After all, what he is saying here is a lie intended to put you off destroy (according to IT)...

It depends on the version of IT. Some say it's an elaborate thing constructed directly by Harbinger, but others say it's just Shepards mind personifying their fight with indoctrination. In the latter case Shepard knows deep in their subconscious that destroy wont kill them. In the former I've got no idea because it's the version I think about less.

[Rosewind]

lex0r11 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

[...]

I'm just saying under IT there was no reason not to state as fact that Shepard would die (and would fit his motivations better) than what we actually got, which is the Catalyst trying to make it ambiguous and sound not as bad.

But it is the worst choice. It's not just the synthetic mass murder.

"The peace will not last"

"Soon your children will create synthetics"

LEXY!!! *Pounce*

[SubAstris]

TSA_383 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

TSA_383 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

One thing I have been unable to get my head around is this: With IT, the Catalyst tries to convince Shepard that Destroy is the worst option by saying that EDI and the Geth will die, and also that "even you (Shepard) is partly synthetic"- it seems clear that this is a fairly ambiguous statement. The Catalyst never says, "Shepard, you will certainly die", but perhaps gives a hint that he will, or, as I believe, he is saying his life will be worse without synthetics but it won't be impossible for him to survive. Regardless, it is not entirely clear what he means. The question is why. Why wouldn't the Catalyst want to tell Shepard straight that he will die? Surely the death of EDI and the Geth with Shepard dead aswell is worse and less appealing than the same things happening but him/her being alive? After all, what he is saying here is a lie intended to put you off destroy (according to IT)...

You mean the controlling force of the reapers might have reason to be slightly dishonest towards shepard in order to dissuade him/her from seeking to destroy them?

I'm just saying under IT there was no reason not to state as fact that Shepard would die (and would fit his motivations better) than what we actually got, which is the Catalyst trying to make it ambiguous and sound not as bad.

The Catalyst uses slightly circuitous language rather than lie to the player outright.
You have to look at what's implied.

"Even you are partly synthetic" - It wants you to think that you will die.
"You will control us, but you will lose everything you have" - The implication is that you will die but also control the reapers (eh?) but of course there are much more sinister implications.

As for synthesis - the "final evolution of life"

We know we're talking to a reaper presence (something ITers pointed out months ago), and we know precisely what the reapers see as the "final evolution of life" and what their idea of synthesis is. They've been looking to achieve synthesis in every cycle so far, so with this choice you're effectively aligning yourself to their goals.


Think about it. Which choices are a "solution" as far as the catalyst is concerned?
Do you really want to make a choice that is a solution from the perspective of a reaper?

Equally it could imply that his life will be worse but he will still survive. I'm just saying it's very ambiguous. There is no reason for him not to spin the lie that he will definitely die, that's my point, if he doesn't want Shep to choose destroy.

I think everyone realised the Catalyst was something to do with the Reapers...

[RavenEyry]

TSA_383 wrote...
and we know precisely what the reapers see as the "final evolution of life"

For those who don't remember, Sovereign blatantly calls itself the 'pinacle of evolution'.

[SubAstris]

RavenEyry wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

One thing I have been unable to get my head around is this: With IT, the Catalyst tries to convince Shepard that Destroy is the worst option by saying that EDI and the Geth will die, and also that "even you (Shepard) is partly synthetic"- it seems clear that this is a fairly ambiguous statement. The Catalyst never says, "Shepard, you will certainly die", but perhaps gives a hint that he will, or, as I believe, he is saying his life will be worse without synthetics but it won't be impossible for him to survive. Regardless, it is not entirely clear what he means. The question is why. Why wouldn't the Catalyst want to tell Shepard straight that he will die? Surely the death of EDI and the Geth with Shepard dead aswell is worse and less appealing than the same things happening but him/her being alive? After all, what he is saying here is a lie intended to put you off destroy (according to IT)...

It depends on the version of IT. Some say it's an elaborate thing constructed directly by Harbinger, but others say it's just Shepards mind personifying their fight with indoctrination. In the latter case Shepard knows deep in their subconscious that destroy wont kill them. In the former I've got no idea because it's the version I think about less.

Sorry how does this work? Equally you just pull out of your a*** that he knows deep in his subconscious that the Geth won't die, but the Catalyst still says it.

Modifié par SubAstris, 23 juillet 2012 - 03:43 .

[MaximizedAction]

RavenEyry wrote...

TSA_383 wrote...
and we know precisely what the reapers see as the "final evolution of life"

For those who don't remember, Sovereign blatantly calls itself the 'pinacle of evolution'.

Oh, and just in case someone forgets what the Reapers do to those to be ascended into 'perfection' (I know I do when I tell myself that the Catalyst might be telling the truth)



EDIT: This of course doesn't say anything whether they 'got into a jolly reaper-form existence' and are now livin' the dream, but the question remains: why go through all the pain to get into perfection? If you ask me, this reminds me of certain real-world religious fanatics...(I will say no more of this and neither should this be discussed in here )

Modifié par MaximizedAction, 23 juillet 2012 - 03:55 .

[legaldinho]

SubAstris wrote...

TSA_383 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

TSA_383 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

One thing I have been unable to get my head around is this: With IT, the Catalyst tries to convince Shepard that Destroy is the worst option by saying that EDI and the Geth will die, and also that "even you (Shepard) is partly synthetic"- it seems clear that this is a fairly ambiguous statement. The Catalyst never says, "Shepard, you will certainly die", but perhaps gives a hint that he will, or, as I believe, he is saying his life will be worse without synthetics but it won't be impossible for him to survive. Regardless, it is not entirely clear what he means. The question is why. Why wouldn't the Catalyst want to tell Shepard straight that he will die? Surely the death of EDI and the Geth with Shepard dead aswell is worse and less appealing than the same things happening but him/her being alive? After all, what he is saying here is a lie intended to put you off destroy (according to IT)...

You mean the controlling force of the reapers might have reason to be slightly dishonest towards shepard in order to dissuade him/her from seeking to destroy them?

I'm just saying under IT there was no reason not to state as fact that Shepard would die (and would fit his motivations better) than what we actually got, which is the Catalyst trying to make it ambiguous and sound not as bad.

The Catalyst uses slightly circuitous language rather than lie to the player outright.
You have to look at what's implied.

"Even you are partly synthetic" - It wants you to think that you will die.
"You will control us, but you will lose everything you have" - The implication is that you will die but also control the reapers (eh?) but of course there are much more sinister implications.

As for synthesis - the "final evolution of life"

We know we're talking to a reaper presence (something ITers pointed out months ago), and we know precisely what the reapers see as the "final evolution of life" and what their idea of synthesis is. They've been looking to achieve synthesis in every cycle so far, so with this choice you're effectively aligning yourself to their goals.


Think about it. Which choices are a "solution" as far as the catalyst is concerned?
Do you really want to make a choice that is a solution from the perspective of a reaper?

Equally it could imply that his life will be worse but he will still survive. I'm just saying it's very ambiguous. There is no reason for him not to spin the lie that he will definitely die, that's my point, if he doesn't want Shep to choose destroy.

I think everyone realised the Catalyst was something to do with the Reapers...

It's a lot more subtle to imply nefarious consequences for shep than to say "u will die too btw" and invite questions and more suspicion. The overall flavour of the destroy option is it is presented as the worst option by the catalyst. I don't think that can be denied.

Extended cut dlc throws a spanner in the works though. Why does the catalyst care that the cycle continues and that Shepard rejected all three choices? The entire ending remains botched in my view, IT or no. I have been of this view since I first posted on the predecessor to this thread. In order for IT to work, the face value endings must work. And the player could wonder, jeez, did that all happen, or was I / was Shep indoctrinated?

There's a lot of talk about Inception recently, and that's a great movie, but a real mess. It is not supposed to make clear cut sense. The entire thing is an allegory for filmmaking - the true shared dream, where the action flows without us asking- how did I get here? why doesn't this make sense?

A truer film analogy for what the ME3 ending should have worked as is Total Recall: face value ending makes sense. Hallucination alternative blows your mind. Two alternative interpretations of the same set of fictional events is in principle possible, and much more desirable than a huge "psyke! we trolled you, now here's the real thing. In DLC or a sequel."

I don't believe Bioware is that incompetent, so my view is they've gone the way they have- total ambiguity- expecting some dissatisfaction (though nowhere near what we have had), but essentially to keep us guessing, buying DLC, and salivating for whatever morsels of lore we can dig out of a sequel / follow up series. Shame, really.

[Leonia]

I think that what Sub is getting at is if you take Destroy from a literal point-of-view, it doesn't sound that bad. The Catalyst doesn't even specifically say the geth and EDI will be destroyed. If he's trying to get Shepard to avoid Destroy at all costs then he's doing a poor job of presenting the negatives. And after the EC he even mentions that the AI will probably rebuilt and no more will be destroyed than have already been lost.

IT has pretty much been tied in to the Destroy choice being the only option because it comes with the shiny breath scene but perhaps all the choices are equally viable (or maybe Destroy isn't as special we want to think it is). Why doesn't the Catalyst come out and say "Dude, push that and you're dead, you don't want to be dead (again) do you?" Or maybe it knows that Shepard doesn't care about dieing if the Reapers go down with her. Still, it could try a lot harder to make that option seem less appealing.

Modifié par leonia42, 23 juillet 2012 - 04:05 .

[RavenEyry]

leonia42 wrote...
Why doesn't the Catalyst come out and say "Dude, push that and you're dead, you don't want to be dead (again) do you?"

Since it does say Shep will die in the other options it doesn't rally make a difference.

[SubAstris]

legaldinho wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

TSA_383 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

TSA_383 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

One thing I have been unable to get my head around is this: With IT, the Catalyst tries to convince Shepard that Destroy is the worst option by saying that EDI and the Geth will die, and also that "even you (Shepard) is partly synthetic"- it seems clear that this is a fairly ambiguous statement. The Catalyst never says, "Shepard, you will certainly die", but perhaps gives a hint that he will, or, as I believe, he is saying his life will be worse without synthetics but it won't be impossible for him to survive. Regardless, it is not entirely clear what he means. The question is why. Why wouldn't the Catalyst want to tell Shepard straight that he will die? Surely the death of EDI and the Geth with Shepard dead aswell is worse and less appealing than the same things happening but him/her being alive? After all, what he is saying here is a lie intended to put you off destroy (according to IT)...

You mean the controlling force of the reapers might have reason to be slightly dishonest towards shepard in order to dissuade him/her from seeking to destroy them?

I'm just saying under IT there was no reason not to state as fact that Shepard would die (and would fit his motivations better) than what we actually got, which is the Catalyst trying to make it ambiguous and sound not as bad.

The Catalyst uses slightly circuitous language rather than lie to the player outright.
You have to look at what's implied.

"Even you are partly synthetic" - It wants you to think that you will die.
"You will control us, but you will lose everything you have" - The implication is that you will die but also control the reapers (eh?) but of course there are much more sinister implications.

As for synthesis - the "final evolution of life"

We know we're talking to a reaper presence (something ITers pointed out months ago), and we know precisely what the reapers see as the "final evolution of life" and what their idea of synthesis is. They've been looking to achieve synthesis in every cycle so far, so with this choice you're effectively aligning yourself to their goals.


Think about it. Which choices are a "solution" as far as the catalyst is concerned?
Do you really want to make a choice that is a solution from the perspective of a reaper?

Equally it could imply that his life will be worse but he will still survive. I'm just saying it's very ambiguous. There is no reason for him not to spin the lie that he will definitely die, that's my point, if he doesn't want Shep to choose destroy.

I think everyone realised the Catalyst was something to do with the Reapers...

It's a lot more subtle to imply nefarious consequences for shep than to say "u will die too btw" and invite questions and more suspicion. The overall flavour of the destroy option is it is presented as the worst option by the catalyst. I don't think that can be denied.

Extended cut dlc throws a spanner in the works though. Why does the catalyst care that the cycle continues and that Shepard rejected all three choices? The entire ending remains botched in my view, IT or no. I have been of this view since I first posted on the predecessor to this thread. In order for IT to work, the face value endings must work. And the player could wonder, jeez, did that all happen, or was I / was Shep indoctrinated?

There's a lot of talk about Inception recently, and that's a great movie, but a real mess. It is not supposed to make clear cut sense. The entire thing is an allegory for filmmaking - the true shared dream, where the action flows without us asking- how did I get here? why doesn't this make sense?

A truer film analogy for what the ME3 ending should have worked as is Total Recall: face value ending makes sense. Hallucination alternative blows your mind. Two alternative interpretations of the same set of fictional events is in principle possible, and much more desirable than a huge "psyke! we trolled you, now here's the real thing. In DLC or a sequel."

I don't believe Bioware is that incompetent, so my view is they've gone the way they have- total ambiguity- expecting some dissatisfaction (though nowhere near what we have had), but essentially to keep us guessing, buying DLC, and salivating for whatever morsels of lore we can dig out of a sequel / follow up series. Shame, really.

The Catalyst has stated everything else such as EDI, Geth will die, "your ancestors will create synthetics..." blah blah in no uncertain terms, why the change just for that bit? All I can say is that the Catalyst paints Synthesis in the best possible light, whilst control has the potential to be good, just as destroy could have the potential to be good as well.

[RavenEyry]

SubAstris wrote...

The Catalyst has stated everything else such as EDI, Geth will die, "your ancestors will create synthetics..." blah blah in no uncertain terms, why the change just for that bit? All I can say is that the Catalyst paints Synthesis in the best possible light, whilst control has the potential to be good, just as destroy could have the potential to be good as well.

Actually it says that stuff in pretty uncertain terms too.

[Leonia]

RavenEyry wrote...

leonia42 wrote...
Why doesn't the Catalyst come out and say "Dude, push that and you're dead, you don't want to be dead (again) do you?"

Since it does say Shep will die in the other options it doesn't rally make a difference.

So it has no qualms telling Shepard that whatever she chooses will lead to death except when it comes to Destroy? It's heavily implied, yes, but not outright stated which seems to invite more questions than being more explicit would have been.

[WandySilva]

SubAstris wrote...

One thing I have been unable to get my head around is this: With IT, the Catalyst tries to convince Shepard that Destroy is the worst option by saying that EDI and the Geth will die, and also that "even you (Shepard) is partly synthetic"- it seems clear that this is a fairly ambiguous statement. The Catalyst never says, "Shepard, you will certainly die", but perhaps gives a hint that he will, or, as I believe, he is saying his life will be worse without synthetics but it won't be impossible for him to survive. Regardless, it is not entirely clear what he means. The question is why. Why wouldn't the Catalyst want to tell Shepard straight that he will die? Surely the death of EDI and the Geth with Shepard dead aswell is worse and less appealing than the same things happening but him/her being alive? After all, what he is saying here is a lie intended to put you off destroy (according to IT)...

I think this has to do more with Bioware keeping the endings ambiguous than anything else, if the catalyst told shepard that destroy would kill him, then anyone with a high EMS survived would immediately scream "THE CATALYST LIES!!!11!!1!" giving a lot more merit to non-literalist interpretations. It is much more beneficial for bioware's "lots of speculation" platform to keep everything the catalyst says open ended.

[TSA_383]

MaximizedAction wrote...

RavenEyry wrote...

TSA_383 wrote...
and we know precisely what the reapers see as the "final evolution of life"

For those who don't remember, Sovereign blatantly calls itself the 'pinacle of evolution'.

Oh, and just in case someone forgets what the Reapers do to those to be ascended into 'perfection' (I know I do when I tell myself that the Catalyst might be telling the truth)



EDIT: This of course doesn't say anything whether they 'got into a jolly reaper-form existence' and are now livin' the dream, but the question remains: why go through all the pain to get into perfection? If you ask me, this reminds me of certain real-world religious fanatics...(I will say no more of this and neither should this be discussed in here )

I made that poster 

[MaximizedAction]

TSA_383 wrote...
I made that poster 

And we come full circle...

[SubAstris]

WandySilva wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

One thing I have been unable to get my head around is this: With IT, the Catalyst tries to convince Shepard that Destroy is the worst option by saying that EDI and the Geth will die, and also that "even you (Shepard) is partly synthetic"- it seems clear that this is a fairly ambiguous statement. The Catalyst never says, "Shepard, you will certainly die", but perhaps gives a hint that he will, or, as I believe, he is saying his life will be worse without synthetics but it won't be impossible for him to survive. Regardless, it is not entirely clear what he means. The question is why. Why wouldn't the Catalyst want to tell Shepard straight that he will die? Surely the death of EDI and the Geth with Shepard dead aswell is worse and less appealing than the same things happening but him/her being alive? After all, what he is saying here is a lie intended to put you off destroy (according to IT)...

I think this has to do more with Bioware keeping the endings ambiguous than anything else, if the catalyst told shepard that destroy would kill him, then anyone with a high EMS survived would immediately scream "THE CATALYST LIES!!!11!!1!" giving a lot more merit to non-literalist interpretations. It is much more beneficial for bioware's "lots of speculation" platform to keep everything the catalyst says open ended.

They have to show the twist somehow, because they ain't gonna do it with gameplay!

[RavenEyry]

WandySilva wrote...

I think this has to do more with Bioware keeping the endings ambiguous than anything else, if the catalyst told shepard that destroy would kill him, then anyone with a high EMS survived would immediately scream "THE CATALYST LIES!!!11!!1!" giving a lot more merit to non-literalist interpretations. It is much more beneficial for bioware's "lots of speculation" platform to keep everything the catalyst says open ended.

Excellent point. As it stands Mr. Sparkle only misleads you without outright lies.

[Leonia]

WandySilva wrote...

I think this has to do more with Bioware keeping the endings ambiguous than anything else, if the catalyst told shepard that destroy would kill him, then anyone with a high EMS survived would immediately scream "THE CATALYST LIES!!!11!!1!" giving a lot more merit to non-literalist interpretations. It is much more beneficial for bioware's "lots of speculation" platform to keep everything the catalyst says open ended.

But there's plenty of other examples of the Catalyst lieing or using fallacious arguments.

Why would Bioware go through both the trouble of a literal ending, an IT ending, and a "let's confuse both of them" ending? That's a lot of effort to cover up something that may or may not exist.

Every time someone uses the "Well they're doing x,y, and z to fool the literalists" as evidence of IT,  I have to restrain myself from face palming. It makes little sense to do that, there's plenty of speculations for everyone without the extra layers of secrecy to dig through.

[WandySilva]

SubAstris wrote...

WandySilva wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

One thing I have been unable to get my head around is this: With IT, the Catalyst tries to convince Shepard that Destroy is the worst option by saying that EDI and the Geth will die, and also that "even you (Shepard) is partly synthetic"- it seems clear that this is a fairly ambiguous statement. The Catalyst never says, "Shepard, you will certainly die", but perhaps gives a hint that he will, or, as I believe, he is saying his life will be worse without synthetics but it won't be impossible for him to survive. Regardless, it is not entirely clear what he means. The question is why. Why wouldn't the Catalyst want to tell Shepard straight that he will die? Surely the death of EDI and the Geth with Shepard dead aswell is worse and less appealing than the same things happening but him/her being alive? After all, what he is saying here is a lie intended to put you off destroy (according to IT)...

I think this has to do more with Bioware keeping the endings ambiguous than anything else, if the catalyst told shepard that destroy would kill him, then anyone with a high EMS survived would immediately scream "THE CATALYST LIES!!!11!!1!" giving a lot more merit to non-literalist interpretations. It is much more beneficial for bioware's "lots of speculation" platform to keep everything the catalyst says open ended.

They have to show the twist somehow, because they ain't gonna do it with gameplay!

It has been rumored that Leviathan dlc will open up new conversation options with the catalyst, or atleast provide more context, so perhaps that will be the IT'ers holy grail. Or they will just milk us for every cent and give us some ****ty extra one lined response...