9087 réponses à ce sujet

[dreman9999]

Heeden wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
]"I am the catalyst...."
And isn't the caytalist need to finishs the crucible......It's a part of the crucible....Why can it use  the crusible?

Hmm? The Catalyst is the AI who gives you the options, the Citadel is part of the Catalyst (its body), the Crucible is something extra added on.

The Star Child is something completely different from a different story.

And...He says he is the catalyst....He is  something different it would mean he is lieing.
There would be something stated and shown he meant something different.

Modifié par dreman9999, 21 mai 2012 - 07:40 .

[Heeden]

dreman9999 wrote...

Heeden wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
]"I am the catalyst...."
And isn't the caytalist need to finishs the crucible......It's a part of the crucible....Why can it use  the crusible?

Hmm? The Catalyst is the AI who gives you the options, the Citadel is part of the Catalyst (its body), the Crucible is something extra added on.

The Star Child is something completely different from a different story.

And...He says he is the catalyst....He is  something different it would mean he is lieing.
There would be something stated and shown he meant something different.

What I meant is - there is no entity called the Star Child in Mass Effect, the Star Child is from Warhammer 40k (and has possibly been retconned anyway),

[dreman9999]

Heeden wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Heeden wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
]"I am the catalyst...."
And isn't the caytalist need to finishs the crucible......It's a part of the crucible....Why can it use  the crusible?

Hmm? The Catalyst is the AI who gives you the options, the Citadel is part of the Catalyst (its body), the Crucible is something extra added on.

The Star Child is something completely different from a different story.

And...He says he is the catalyst....He is  something different it would mean he is lieing.
There would be something stated and shown he meant something different.

What I meant is - there is no entity called the Star Child in Mass Effect, the Star Child is from Warhammer 40k (and has possibly been retconned anyway),

We gave him that name....Bioware calls him the catalyst...Which he also calls himself....On point being the cataylist he is part of the crucible....What is stopping him form using something he is a part of?

[ardensia]

Well done, OP. Very well thought out, and from the looks of things, you've given some others some things to think about, too.

[PsyrenY]

dreman9999 wrote...
1. Not  unless they are also both traps.
2.No, my shepard is running into a firy beam....He is too busy dieing to apply his choice.

1. If they're all traps, then does it really matter which one you pick? Why hate on Synthesis then?
2. If you're running into the beam, you've already chosen.

[dreman9999]

Optimystic_X wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
1. Not  unless they are also both traps.
2.No, my shepard is running into a firy beam....He is too busy dieing to apply his choice.

1. If they're all traps, then does it really matter which one you pick? Why hate on Synthesis then?
2. If you're running into the beam, you've already chosen.

1. Because it's the most obvious trap.
2.How do you trigger the crucible then?....It never does untill you well in the beam.

[Heeden]

We gave him that name....Bioware calls him the catalyst...Which he also calls himself....

I suppose it kinda works but there are much better sci-fi continuities to compare ME to than WH40k. Dune, Foundation, Babylon 5 and Iain M. Banks' sci-fi works are all much closer in theme.

On point being the cataylist he is part of the crucible....What is stopping him form using something he is a part of?

Because his solution has been broken; as the "Avatar of this cycle" (as Javik put it) you get to decide the new solution - freedom to develop without ancient interference, control over the AI threat or a gestalt galactic entity,

Modifié par Heeden, 21 mai 2012 - 08:06 .

[Veneke]

dreman9999 wrote...

The starchild lie is not a narritive flaw but the not having the ending would...But it doesn't gear towards agreein gwith the starchild.
Also on .
1&2. The star child was the was the one that made the offer.And he is part of the reapers.
3.That the nature of the pinnicle of evolution but you need o ask your self why they think that way...It not based on the astablished form...It's the factthey don't need. The thing they want to do is evolve organics but being at the pinnicle of evoltionn does nto mean  they will not take something they feel is better. Being at the pinicle of evolution does not mean you are...It's a state of mind....Remeber, this is the same reapers that were taken down by threasher maws. The entire point of the scene was to point out they are not...That they just don't need.

The Starchild lying is the biggest narrative flaw going, and the in the midst of the narrative flaws present in the ending that's saying quite a bit. The short of it is that if the Starchild is lying then we can't win. Think about it. If Starchild is lying and none of the options do anything and/or Synthesis is a means of Reaper control then that's it - you've lost. The Reapers continue with their cycle and are now off to finish harvesting the current crop from the galaxy. That's why it's a narrative flaw - you're left with either no conclusion or you've lost.
 
You're not really answering the question with regards the Catalyst/Crucible thing so I'm just going to drop it.

[Heeden]

dreman9999 wrote...

1. Because it's the most obvious trap.

But why lay a trap on just one? Why not make all the options a trap, or just shoot Shepard with a laser and carry on killing everyone?

[dreman9999]

Veneke wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

The starchild lie is not a narritive flaw but the not having the ending would...But it doesn't gear towards agreein gwith the starchild.
Also on .
1&2. The star child was the was the one that made the offer.And he is part of the reapers.
3.That the nature of the pinnicle of evolution but you need o ask your self why they think that way...It not based on the astablished form...It's the factthey don't need. The thing they want to do is evolve organics but being at the pinnicle of evoltionn does nto mean  they will not take something they feel is better. Being at the pinicle of evolution does not mean you are...It's a state of mind....Remeber, this is the same reapers that were taken down by threasher maws. The entire point of the scene was to point out they are not...That they just don't need.

The Starchild lying is the biggest narrative flaw going, and the in the midst of the narrative flaws present in the ending that's saying quite a bit. The short of it is that if the Starchild is lying then we can't win. Think about it. If Starchild is lying and none of the options do anything and/or Synthesis is a means of Reaper control then that's it - you've lost. The Reapers continue with their cycle and are now off to finish harvesting the current crop from the galaxy. That's why it's a narrative flaw - you're left with either no conclusion or you've lost.
 
You're not really answering the question with regards the Catalyst/Crucible thing so I'm just going to drop it.

But it doen't point to anything for agreeing with the starchild and the goes with the on going statement that the reapers arenot to be trusted.
And for the catayst/crucible....Thestarchild says he's the catalyst....Which is part of the crucible...Who can't heusesomething that is a part of him.

[dreman9999]

Heeden wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

1. Because it's the most obvious trap.

But why lay a trap on just one? Why not make all the options a trap, or just shoot Shepard with a laser and carry on killing everyone?

Did you miss teh part where I said thay all can be traps in teh post before?

[Heeden]

dreman9999 wrote...

Heeden wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

1. Because it's the most obvious trap.

But why lay a trap on just one? Why not make all the options a trap, or just shoot Shepard with a laser and carry on killing everyone?

Did you miss teh part where I said thay all can be traps in teh post before?

So why not just shoot Shepard with a laser and carry on? Why bother letting him on the Citadel and talking to him?

[dreman9999]

Heeden wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Heeden wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

1. Because it's the most obvious trap.

But why lay a trap on just one? Why not make all the options a trap, or just shoot Shepard with a laser and carry on killing everyone?

Did you miss teh part where I said thay all can be traps in teh post before?

So why not just shoot Shepard with a laser and carry on? Why bother letting him on the Citadel and talking to him?

Why leave the citadel there for any organic to get to it?

[Heeden]

dreman9999 wrote...
Why leave the citadel there for any organic to get to it?

Because the Catalyst values organic life and has left a hope for victory, so if galactic society evolves to the stage where it can create the Crucible, deliver it to the Citadel  and send in a champion with a strong enough will to resist indoctrination they break the cycle and get to choose their own destiny.

[XFactor777]

My question is if the catalyst is needed for the crucible to work that means someone somewhere found the little bastard before which would mean we are not the first to see and/or talk to it making his entire argument a lie which is the exact reason you should be able to just flat out refuse to listen to it's broken ass logic

[MisterJB]

The StarChild isn't needed, the Citadel is. It just so happens the Citadel is part of it.
The previous cycles could have incorporated the Citadel in the Crucible's plan without ever realizing the leader of the Reapers lived in it.

[Veneke]

dreman9999 wrote...

Veneke wrote...

The Starchild lying is the biggest narrative flaw going, and the in the midst of the narrative flaws present in the ending that's saying quite a bit. The short of it is that if the Starchild is lying then we can't win. Think about it. If Starchild is lying and none of the options do anything and/or Synthesis is a means of Reaper control then that's it - you've lost. The Reapers continue with their cycle and are now off to finish harvesting the current crop from the galaxy. That's why it's a narrative flaw - you're left with either no conclusion or you've lost.
 
You're not really answering the question with regards the Catalyst/Crucible thing so I'm just going to drop it.

But it doen't point to anything for agreeing with the starchild and the goes with the on going statement that the reapers arenot to be trusted.
And for the catayst/crucible....Thestarchild says he's the catalyst....Which is part of the crucible...Who can't heusesomething that is a part of him.

...

It does - either the Catalyst is lying or its not. If it isn't then there's nothing up for debate. If it is then there's a major narrative flaw. I'm honestly not sure how much clearer I can be on this point - perhaps someone else could restate it in different words?
 
I won't even get into the 'it's part of him so he can't use it' argument you've just put forward.

[Ieldra]

Added a few things to the "common objections" section. Also checked the OP for mistakes.

[Ieldra]

delta_vee wrote...

Veneke wrote...
Given that nothing is explained from the endings it necessitates guesswork and examples drawn from the game before the ending to explain them. Nor is anyone suggesting a canonical ending - if there was an explained canonical ending, we wouldn't be here speculating.

Indeed, I do appreciate that. The OP, though, seems to be suggesting a canonical interpretation is possible with the evidence at hand.

I am not saying my interpretation is the only one possible, and I'll be glad to include alternative interpretations if they present Synthesis "as a viable way to end the Reaper threat and secure a future free of any harvesting cycle for the civilizations of the galaxy." (my OP as quoted by you). I believe Heeden may be onto an alternative one with his post on page 5.

I *am* going for a comprehensive and consistent description, though, and if that comprehensiveness and consistency results in a certain sovereignity of interpretation I certainly won't complain.

-------
BTW, some people have asked why I'm going to this length about Synthesis. Here's my answer: I'm pissed with the hate threads, I'm pissed with IT, I'm pissed with people arguing from association fallacies, and I'm thoroughly disgusted by the people who are lobbying to invalidate or remove my preferred choice, thus ruining my games. I am writing to save five years of playing Mass Effect games from being ruined by other fans.  

Apart from that, it's actually fun putting all that together. It's much more fun to be constructive. And even more satisfying to link things together to get a better picture of what may happen in the ME universe after ME3's end if you take a specific option.

Nonetheless, I hope that the EC will clear the nonsense up. The process of Synthesis may remain in the realm of "sufficiently advanced technology" aka space magic, and the results may be only vaguely described, but what we get should make sense without having to put this much effort into it. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 21 mai 2012 - 12:31 .

[dreman9999]

Veneke wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Veneke wrote...

The Starchild lying is the biggest narrative flaw going, and the in the midst of the narrative flaws present in the ending that's saying quite a bit. The short of it is that if the Starchild is lying then we can't win. Think about it. If Starchild is lying and none of the options do anything and/or Synthesis is a means of Reaper control then that's it - you've lost. The Reapers continue with their cycle and are now off to finish harvesting the current crop from the galaxy. That's why it's a narrative flaw - you're left with either no conclusion or you've lost.
 
You're not really answering the question with regards the Catalyst/Crucible thing so I'm just going to drop it.

But it doen't point to anything for agreeing with the starchild and the goes with the on going statement that the reapers arenot to be trusted.
And for the catayst/crucible....Thestarchild says he's the catalyst....Which is part of the crucible...Who can't heusesomething that is a part of him.

...

It does - either the Catalyst is lying or its not. If it isn't then there's nothing up for debate. If it is then there's a major narrative flaw. I'm honestly not sure how much clearer I can be on this point - perhaps someone else could restate it in different words?
 
I won't even get into the 'it's part of him so he can't use it' argument you've just put forward.

But my point is the it doesn't point the veiwer to agree with the starchild.

[dreman9999]

MisterJB wrote...

The StarChild isn't needed, the Citadel is. It just so happens the Citadel is part of it.
The previous cycles could have incorporated the Citadel in the Crucible's plan without ever realizing the leader of the Reapers lived in it.

I'm sorry...He just told me is the catalyst...That's final part of the crucible....He is ether lieing or he really is the catalyst.
Are you saying he is lieing?

[dreman9999]

Heeden wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Why leave the citadel there for any organic to get to it?

Because the Catalyst values organic life and has left a hope for victory, so if galactic society evolves to the stage where it can create the Crucible, deliver it to the Citadel  and send in a champion with a strong enough will to resist indoctrination they break the cycle and get to choose their own destiny.

No, if he did value organic life he would never apply the havest cycle as his salution...

[Ieldra]

dreman9999 wrote...
No, if he did value organic life he would never apply the havest cycle as his salution...

That I prune my rosebush is a sign that I value it. Though I'm sure the rosebush would disagree. Different perspectives. They value organic life as a whole and sacrifice single branches to protect that whole. Perfectly consistent.

[dreman9999]

Ieldra2 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
No, if he did value organic life he would never apply the havest cycle as his salution...

That I prune my rosebush is a sign that I value it. Though I'm sure the rosebush would disagree. Different perspectives. They value organic life as a whole and sacrifice single branches to protect that whole. Perfectly consistent.

Your rose bush doesn't have a will. The fact that he ignores the say of advance organic life makes it clear he does not respect organic life.

[Ieldra]

dreman9999 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
No, if he did value organic life he would never apply the havest cycle as his salution...

That I prune my rosebush is a sign that I value it. Though I'm sure the rosebush would disagree. Different perspectives. They value organic life as a whole and sacrifice single branches to protect that whole. Perfectly consistent.

Your rose bush doesn't have a will. The fact that he ignores the say of advance organic life makes it clear he does not respect organic life.

Having a will doesn't make a difference for valuing anything. Besides, when did "value" change to "respect". You're changing your stance with every post you make.