72 réponses à ce sujet

[GeneralBacon339]

i agree with the OP! however i still need an optional happy ending!

Keyword: Optional

Indoctrination theory is golden!

[Mcfly616]

Not Extended enough? That's odd....considering I can only think of one game with a longer epilogue.....

[elitehunter34]

Cheviot wrote...
Cerberus would've taken the Citadel the first time if it hadn't been for Shepard. Since Shepard wasn't there
the second time, Cerberus and the Reapers were able to succeed.

Well it should have been shown in game, as of right now how the Reapers got control of the Citadel is a mystery. That was a pretty big thing for the game to ignore.

Cheviot wrote... 
Of course it's absurd, because it doesn't need husks, it's got the Keepers. It's also absurd because it doesn't need to do anything. Why? Because it isn't concerned with making sure that the Reapers win at any cost. It only starts getting involved once it becomes clear that it's previous solution no longer works.

C'mon man.  Of course It is concerned with making sure the Reapers win at any cost.  The Catalyst determined that the Reaper solution was the best one.  It stuck with that solution for millons of years.  It controls them.  It makes absolutely no goddamn sense why the Catalyst has no control of the Citadel.

Cheviot wrote...  
You should stick around and watch the new endings in the EC, I think you'll enjoy them. If the Stargazer
scene in the original or that text that tells you the Reapers were defeated wasn't enough evidence that the Reapers were defeated, then the new endings show without a doubt that the Catalyst's offer was genuine and what it described happening in each ending did come to pass.

You're completely missing Twilight's point.  Twilight is saying that it makes no sense why Shepard should trust the Catalyst and why Shepard is never given the option to try to argue with the Catalyst's reasoning.  You only know the Catalyst's offer was genuine once you beat the game.  Shepard didn't know that.

Cheviot wrote...  
Again I agree it is absurd, because  hat's not what the Catalyst (I guess that's what you were referring to) is doing. It isn't designed to work in concert with the Reapers. It designed the Reapers to solve the problem of the
organic-synthetic conflict. It left them to their work while it waited for them to fail, at which point it involved itself in theconflict again to create a new solution.
Also, Vendetta reveals that the Protheans inferred the Catalyst's existence.

That isn't even addressing what Twilight is saying.  It makes no sense why the Crucible is designed to interface with the Star Child because no one new of its existance.  Vendetta said the Citadel is the Catalyst.  He never said that the Catalyst is an AI that resides on the Citadel.  He obviously didnt know about the Star Child.

[Cheviot]

elitehunter34 wrote...
Well it should have been shown in game, as of right now how the Reapers got control of the Citadel is a mystery. That was a pretty big thing for the game to ignore.

I agree that having a scene showing it would be helpful, the fact a whole mission is centred on their first attempt is enough to infer that they - and the Reapers - would make a second attempt. 

C'mon man.  Of course It is concerned with making sure the Reapers win at any cost.  The Catalyst determined that the Reaper solution was the best one.  It stuck with that solution for millons of years.  It controls them.  It makes absolutely no goddamn sense why the Catalyst has no control of the Citadel.

Yet the moment one organic, on the edge of death, gets face-to-face with it, it gives Shepard a choice which could lead to the Reaper's destruction? That suggests  it is prepared to sacrifice the Reapers and itself for the thing it wants at any cost: an end (or at least a balance) to the organic-synthetic conflict.  It doesn't care about the solution as long as it works.

Concerning control of the Citadel, I'm pretty sure it can control it - I haven't seen any evidence it can't, anyway - but I'm equally sure it doesn't need to up to the point when it appears before Shepard.  If we consider it a god to the Reapers, then it is a non-interventionist one.  It sets the Cycles in motion, then waits dreaming in it's house in the Citadel.

You're completely missing Twilight's point.  Twilight is saying that it makes no sense why Shepard should trust the Catalyst and why Shepard is never given the option to try to argue with the Catalyst's reasoning.  You only know the Catalyst's offer was genuine once you beat the game.  Shepard didn't know that.

There's no reason why Shepard frees the Rachni Queen in ME1.  Everything you've heard and seen of it suggests it would be a mistake.  Same with freeing Grunt or switching on Legion.  Everything points to there being trouble.  As a series Mass Effect's best moments come when faced with choices that don't have a obvious answer.  Also, Shepard (depending on what conversation tree you follow) tells the Catalyst that either Hope or Choice defines the organics, and Shepard's decision to trust the Catalyst embodies both traits.

That isn't even addressing what Twilight is saying.  It makes no sense why the Crucible is designed to interface with the Star Child because no one new of its existance.  Vendetta said the Citadel is the Catalyst.  He never said that the Catalyst is an AI that resides on the Citadel.  He obviously didnt know about the Star Child.

The Catalyst bats away Shepard's question about who designed it, but it's a clear possibility - when it says that the race that designed it didn't like being Reaped that - that it designers also came up with original plan for the Crucible, since they'd know the most about it.

As for your point about Vendetta, you're right.  However, you're thinking of the conversation on Cronos Station, but I was thinking of the conversation on Thessia, when Vendetta  talks about the inferred "master of the pattern" (the pattern being the same evolutions and dissolutions in each Cycle).  I should've been clearer about that, sorry.

Modifié par Cheviot, 18 juillet 2012 - 04:03 .

[Unata]

The one thing I have a difficult time understanding is IF the catalyst is the Citadel and the Citadel was built by the Reapers, it IS Reaper tech, one rather huge one at that and all through ME series anyone coming in direct contact for
a time eventually becomes indoctrinated, why then are not everyone living on the Citadel indoctrinated? even a dead Reaper indoctrinates as in ME 2 where they get the IFF.

Considering the Catalyst controls the Reapers one would think it would be the most powerful piece of Reaper Tech.

[Cheviot]

Unata wrote...

The one thing I have a difficult time understanding is IF the catalyst is the Citadel and the Citadel was built by the Reapers, it IS Reaper tech, one rather huge one at that and all through ME series anyone coming in direct contact for
a time eventually becomes indoctrinated, why then are not everyone living on the Citadel indoctrinated? even a dead Reaper indoctrinates as in ME 2 where they get the IFF.

Considering the Catalyst controls the Reapers one would think it would be the most powerful piece of Reaper Tech.

It could do that, but would go against it's solution to the problem.  I think Rana Thenoptis is the first to state the principle, on Virmire in ME1: " There's a balance between control and usefulness.  The less freedom a subject has, the less capable it becomes."  So, the Catalyst could indoctrinate the entire Citadel, but it wouldn't solve the problem.  It would just be the Synthetics defeating the Organics again by a different means, which isn't what the Catalyst wants.  Also, isn't indoctrination short-term?  As in, without turning the subjects into Husks, they die relatively quickly?

[Unata]

Cheviot wrote...

Unata wrote...

The one thing I have a difficult time understanding is IF the catalyst is the Citadel and the Citadel was built by the Reapers, it IS Reaper tech, one rather huge one at that and all through ME series anyone coming in direct contact for
a time eventually becomes indoctrinated, why then are not everyone living on the Citadel indoctrinated? even a dead Reaper indoctrinates as in ME 2 where they get the IFF.

Considering the Catalyst controls the Reapers one would think it would be the most powerful piece of Reaper Tech.

It could do that, but would go against it's solution to the problem.  I think Rana Thenoptis is the first to state the principle, on Virmire in ME1: " There's a balance between control and usefulness.  The less freedom a subject has, the less capable it becomes."  So, the Catalyst could indoctrinate the entire Citadel, but it wouldn't solve the problem.  It would just be the Synthetics defeating the Organics again by a different means, which isn't what the Catalyst wants.  Also, isn't indoctrination short-term?  As in, without turning the subjects into Husks, they die relatively quickly?

Illusive Man could have been indoctrinated since before ME 1, in Mass Effect Evolution he's wacked with a shot from a Reaper artifact, that's what? a couple years before ME1? and there are "sleeper agents" all through ME, act and talk as anyone else normally, Rana Thenoptis, if allowed to run on Virmire and allowed to live in ME2 and appears to act her normal borderline evil scientist self, goes on to kill some high ranking asari you discover via news feed, that is 3 years and she was a minor player.

[Cheviot]

Unata wrote...

Cheviot wrote...

Unata wrote...

The one thing I have a difficult time understanding is IF the catalyst is the Citadel and the Citadel was built by the Reapers, it IS Reaper tech, one rather huge one at that and all through ME series anyone coming in direct contact for
a time eventually becomes indoctrinated, why then are not everyone living on the Citadel indoctrinated? even a dead Reaper indoctrinates as in ME 2 where they get the IFF.

Considering the Catalyst controls the Reapers one would think it would be the most powerful piece of Reaper Tech.

It could do that, but would go against it's solution to the problem.  I think Rana Thenoptis is the first to state the principle, on Virmire in ME1: " There's a balance between control and usefulness.  The less freedom a subject has, the less capable it becomes."  So, the Catalyst could indoctrinate the entire Citadel, but it wouldn't solve the problem.  It would just be the Synthetics defeating the Organics again by a different means, which isn't what the Catalyst wants.  Also, isn't indoctrination short-term?  As in, without turning the subjects into Husks, they die relatively quickly?

Illusive Man could have been indoctrinated since before ME 1, in Mass Effect Evolution he's wacked with a shot from a Reaper artifact, that's what? a couple years before ME1? and there are "sleeper agents" all through ME, act and talk as anyone else normally, Rana Thenoptis, if allowed to run on Virmire and allowed to live in ME2 and appears to act her normal borderline evil scientist self, goes on to kill some high ranking asari you discover via news feed, that is 3 years and she was a minor player.

Maybe, but considering that both of them are under indoctrination for less than a decade before they got themselves killed suggests that Indoctrination isn't a long-term solution.  The Collectors are the longest-surviving example, but they aren't much more than husks that can use guns.

[Unata]

Cheviot wrote...

Unata wrote...

Cheviot wrote...

Unata wrote...

The one thing I have a difficult time understanding is IF the catalyst is the Citadel and the Citadel was built by the Reapers, it IS Reaper tech, one rather huge one at that and all through ME series anyone coming in direct contact for
a time eventually becomes indoctrinated, why then are not everyone living on the Citadel indoctrinated? even a dead Reaper indoctrinates as in ME 2 where they get the IFF.

Considering the Catalyst controls the Reapers one would think it would be the most powerful piece of Reaper Tech.

It could do that, but would go against it's solution to the problem.  I think Rana Thenoptis is the first to state the principle, on Virmire in ME1: " There's a balance between control and usefulness.  The less freedom a subject has, the less capable it becomes."  So, the Catalyst could indoctrinate the entire Citadel, but it wouldn't solve the problem.  It would just be the Synthetics defeating the Organics again by a different means, which isn't what the Catalyst wants.  Also, isn't indoctrination short-term?  As in, without turning the subjects into Husks, they die relatively quickly?

Illusive Man could have been indoctrinated since before ME 1, in Mass Effect Evolution he's wacked with a shot from a Reaper artifact, that's what? a couple years before ME1? and there are "sleeper agents" all through ME, act and talk as anyone else normally, Rana Thenoptis, if allowed to run on Virmire and allowed to live in ME2 and appears to act her normal borderline evil scientist self, goes on to kill some high ranking asari you discover via news feed, that is 3 years and she was a minor player.

Maybe, but considering that both of them are under indoctrination for less than a decade before they got themselves killed suggests that Indoctrination isn't a long-term solution.  The Collectors are the longest-surviving example, but they aren't much more than husks that can use guns.

in ME2 the Collectors DNA showed signs of "extensive genetic rewrite", that's not indoctrination, maybe at first they were but after 50k years of it, hard to say just how long any one person can be indoctrinated.

[elitehunter34]

Cheviot wrote...
Yet the moment one organic, on the edge of death, gets face-to-face with it, it gives Shepard a choice which could lead to the Reaper's destruction? That suggests  it is prepared to sacrifice the Reapers and itself for the thing it wants at any cost: an end (or at least a balance) to the organic-synthetic conflict.  It doesn't care about the solution as long as it works.

No, it means that the Catalyst is an extremely poorly written character.  The Catalyst shouln't give you the Control or Destroy options because it would fail it's mission.  Either the Reapers would be gone, so Synthetics would rise up, or it wouldn't be around to make sure that Shepard doesn't let Synthetics rise up.

Please don't say that the Catalyst was forced to.  It brings us back to the point of the nonsensicalness of the Catalyst being controled by a device that wasn't designed to interface with it.

Cheviot wrote... 
Concerning control of the Citadel, I'm pretty sure it can control it - I haven't seen any evidence it can't, anyway - but I'm equally sure it doesn't need to up to the point when it appears before Shepard.  If we consider it a god to the Reapers, then it is a non-interventionist one.  It sets the Cycles in motion, then waits dreaming in it's house in the Citadel.

If it can control the Citadel why didn't it open the relays for Sovereign in Mass Effect 1?

Cheviot wrote... 
There's no reason why Shepard frees the Rachni Queen in ME1.  Everything you've heard and seen of it suggests it would be a mistake.  Same with freeing Grunt or switching on Legion.  Everything points to there being trouble.  As a series Mass Effect's best moments come when faced with choices that don't have a obvious answer.  Also, Shepard (depending on what conversation tree you follow) tells the Catalyst that either Hope or Choice defines the organics, and Shepard's decision to trust the Catalyst embodies both traits.

No, but the Rachni queen is not your enemy.  Neither is Grunt or Legion.  In those cases it was a risk, but trusting them was not insane.  Trusting the leader of the beings that have wiped out all advanced organic life in the galaxy for millions of years is absolutely insane.

The Catalyst bats away Shepard's question about who designed it, but it's a clear possibility - when it says that the race that designed it didn't like being Reaped that - that it designers also came up with original plan for the Crucible, since they'd know the most about it.

As for your point about Vendetta, you're right.  However, you're thinking of the conversation on Cronos Station, but I was thinking of the conversation on Thessia, when Vendetta  talks about the inferred "master of the pattern" (the pattern being the same evolutions and dissolutions in each Cycle).  I should've been clearer about that, sorry.

You know, the creators first coming up with the design kind of makes sense.  However, it still doesn't make sense why the Crucible has to interface with the Catalyst.  Why can't it just bypass him?  All the Crucible needs is the Citadel to link up with the mass relays.  Not only that, but why does it have the Synthesis and Control options?Those would have to be specifically designed into it.  The Catalyst just through and though does not need to exist. They could have easily had the Crucible plug into the Citadel and fire.

[Cheviot]

elitehunter34 wrote...

No, it means that the Catalyst is an extremely poorly written character.  The Catalyst shouln't give you the Control or Destroy options because it would fail it's mission.  Either the Reapers would be gone, so Synthetics would rise up, or it wouldn't be around to make sure that Shepard doesn't let Synthetics rise up.

Please don't say that the Catalyst was forced to.  It brings us back to the point of the nonsensicalness of the Catalyst being controled by a device that wasn't designed to interface with it.

It wasn't forced to.  It realised that the situation had changed, and so the solution it had used no longer worked.  It knew that because Shepard was right there.  It tells Shepard this.  It knows that if an organic is there, then the organic conflict with non-Reaper synthetics has been sorted out one way or another (otherwise, the galaxy would be fighting on two fronts - Reapers and other synthetics - and so be unable to unite), so this cycle is different. and therefore the Reapers - and it - aren't needed anymore.  If the organics have already defeated the non-Reaper synthetics in this Cycle, they could again, or if they have made peace, then that peace can hold.  This is why it offers you Control and Destroy.

If it can control the Citadel why didn't it open the relays for Sovereign in Mass Effect 1?

Because it's not there to help Sovereign.  It sets the terms and rules of the Cycles, then takes no further part in it until certain things happen.

No, but the Rachni queen is not your enemy.  Neither is Grunt or Legion.  In those cases it was a risk, but trusting them was not insane.  Trusting the leader of the beings that have wiped out all advanced organic life in the galaxy for millions of years is absolutely insane.

It was insane.  The Rachni almost wiped out all other life in the galaxy.  The Geth looked ready to do the same.  At the moment Shepard makes the choice to trust them, there is no solid evidence that it was the right thing to do.  In fact, there was a mountain of evidence it was exactly the wrong thing.  He was right to make them, but he had no reason to believe that beforehand.  Same with the Catalyst.

You know, the creators first coming up with the design kind of makes sense.  However, it still doesn't make sense why the Crucible has to interface with the Catalyst.  Why can't it just bypass him?  All the Crucible needs is the Citadel to link up with the mass relays.  Not only that, but why does it have the Synthesis and Control options?Those would have to be specifically designed into it.  The Catalyst just through and though does not need to exist. They could have easily had the Crucible plug into the Citadel and fire.

I'd guess it's because the Crucible needs the Catalyst to work, in the same way the Genophange cure need The Shroud to work; you can have the cure, but without a means to deliver it, it's like not have the cure at all (at least in the timeframe Shepard had).  The Crucible has the dark energy, but it needs the expertise and abilities of the Catalyst to focus it.

[elitehunter34]

Cheviot wrote...
It wasn't forced to.  It realised that the situation had changed, and so the solution it had used no longer worked.  It knew that because Shepard was right there.  It tells Shepard this.  It knows that if an organic is there, then the organic conflict with non-Reaper synthetics has been sorted out one way or another (otherwise, the galaxy would be fighting on two fronts - Reapers and other synthetics - and so be unable to unite), so this cycle is different. and therefore the Reapers - and it - aren't needed anymore.  If the organics have already defeated the non-Reaper synthetics in this Cycle, they could again, or if they have made peace, then that peace can hold.  This is why it offers you Control and Destroy.

No, that is actually flat out wrong.  The Catalyst doesn't believe that the peace between synthetics will last.  The Catalyst directly states in Destroy, "Soon you're children will create synthetics and then the chaos will come back." Look on youtube if you don't believe me.  So my point still stands: it makes no sense why he gives you the Control and Destroy options when the Catalyst believes that Synthesis is the only real solution.

Cheviot wrote... 
Because it's not there to help Sovereign.  It sets the terms and rules of the Cycles, then takes no further part in it until certain things happen.

Sorry, but that is pure speculation, and an incredibly weak reason.  The Catalyst holds its mission in the utmost priority.  It created the Citadel and the mass relays with the help of the Reapers.  It not being given the power to ensure its mission is completed is simply and utterly absurd.

Cheviot wrote... 
It was insane.  The Rachni almost wiped out all other life in the galaxy.  The Geth looked ready to do the same.  At the moment Shepard makes the choice to trust them, there is no solid evidence that it was the right thing to do.  In fact, there was a mountain of evidence it was exactly the wrong thing.  He was right to make them, but he had no reason to believe that beforehand.  Same with the Catalyst.

I want to make it clear, I do agree that saving the Rachni was a risk.  However they were driven to war by the Reapers.  This much is made clear in Mass Effect 1.  You can choose to believe her.   However, I want to reinterate that trusting the being responsible for the systematic and deliberate annihilation of quintillions of lives is so, so much more insane than trusting a creature that was driven to war against their will by the Reapers, even if you were not sure if she was lying or not.

Cheviot wrote... 
I'd guess it's because the Crucible needs the Catalyst to work, in the same way the Genophange cure need The Shroud to work; you can have the cure, but without a means to deliver it, it's like not have the cure at all (at least in the timeframe Shepard had).  The Crucible has the dark energy, but it needs the expertise and abilities of the Catalyst to focus it.

The Crucible is akin to the genophage cure, the Citadel and the mass relays are akin to the Shroud.  Your analogy only helps prove my own point that the Star Child wasn't necessary.  This also yet again makes me bring up the point of how nonsensical it is for a device designed to kill the Reapers would be designed only to work by interfacing with the creator of the Reapers.  It's just so mindboggingly insane that I'm not sure how it makes any sense to you at all. 

[Cheviot]

elitehunter34 wrote...

No, that is actually flat out wrong.  The Catalyst doesn't believe that the peace between synthetics will last.  The Catalyst directly states in Destroy, "Soon you're children will create synthetics and then the chaos will come back." Look on youtube if you don't believe me.  So my point still stands: it makes no sense why he gives you the Control and Destroy options when the Catalyst believes that Synthesis is the only real solution.

If the Chaos comes back, then this Cycle has proven it can eventually resolve it, because Shepard already have with the Geth by this point.  Anyway, your point only applies to the Destroy ending.  In the Control ending, Reaper-Shep suggests that if anyone threatens the peace of the "many", then it will use the Reapers to attack them.

Because it's not there to help Sovereign.  It sets the terms and rules of the Cycles, then takes no further part in it until certain things happen.

Sorry, but that is pure speculation, and an incredibly weak reason.  The Catalyst holds its mission in the utmost priority.  It created the Citadel and the mass relays with the help of the Reapers.  It not being given the power to ensure its mission is completed is simply and utterly absurd.

My reasoning is supported by the fact it didn't help Sovereign.  Also, we have different interpretations of the Catalyst's "mission": you think it prizes the Reaper Cycles above all.  I think it prizes the best solution to the conflict between organics and synthetics above all.  The failure of Sovereign wasn't a defeat for the Catalyst, as far as I can see; it was the first sign to it that this Cycle was different.  It can afford to let things develop without it's intervention.  I mean, even when Shepard is talking to it, the Catalyst holds all the cards, the Reaper forces are still a threat.  And if I'm right, if it values the best solution to the problem any other concern, it explains why it did not help Sovereign.

I want to make it clear, I do agree that saving the Rachni was a risk.  However they were driven to war by the Reapers.  This much is made clear in Mass Effect 1.  You can choose to believe her.   However, I want to reinterate that trusting the being responsible for the systematic and deliberate annihilation of quintillions of lives is so, so much more insane than trusting a creature that was driven to war against their will by the Reapers, even if you were not sure if she was lying or not.

While I see what you're saying I'd argue that it wasn't definite that the Queen was truthful until ME3.  At any point up to then, she could've just been saying anything to buy time while she bred a new army.  That's what I liked about the storyline; even in ME2, I wasn't sure if she was on the level.  I also agree that the Reapers killed many, many more lives, but the amount the Rachni killed was still huge.

This also yet again makes me bring up the point of how nonsensical it is for a device designed to kill the Reapers would be designed only to work by interfacing with the creator of the Reapers.  It's just so mindboggingly insane that I'm not sure how it makes any sense to you at all. 

It's not that insane if you consider that most wars end with the representatives of either side signing a peace treaty.  The same people who authorized the murder of thousands or millions sign an agreement to cease hostilities.  Besides, it's clear that hardly anyone knew the Catalyst also created the Reapers.  Maybe the original designers did (if they were the ones who designed the Catalyst) but that little tidbit was probably lost in one of the Catalyst's attempts to get rid of the designs.

Also, it isn't the only situation where this thing happens; for instance, the Krogans recieve a Genophage cure from the people who gave them it in the first place.

Modifié par Cheviot, 18 juillet 2012 - 07:09 .

[elitehunter34]

Cheviot wrote...
If the Chaos comes back, then this Cycle has proven it can eventually resolve it, because Shepard already have with the Geth by this point.  Anyway, your point only applies to the Destroy ending.  In the Control ending, Reaper-Shep suggests that if anyone threatens the peace of the "many", then it will use the Reapers to attack them.

No, no it doesn't mean that.  By chaos he means organic synthetic conflict.  He doesn't want that.  The reason why the Catalyst wouldn't tell Shepard about control is that the Catalyst shouldn't trust Shepard with his mission.  Let me explain.

So let's say Shepard trusts the Catalyst believes that the Crucible will work.  So Shepard picks the Control option. Now Shepard controls the Reapers, and there is no more Catalyst.  However, what if Shepard doesn't believe that synthetics will always rebel against organics?  The Catalyst would realize this.  The Catalyst believes that synthetics will always try to destroy organics.  Even with Reaper control, the Catalyst will assume that that might not be enough.  After all, it only takes one time to wipe out all organics, and they are gone forever.  So the Catalyst would never present Shepard the Control option because Shepard might let synthetics rise up that will kill all organics, even if its an accident.  The whole reason the Catalyst made the cycles is because it is the only surefire way to stop synthetics from rising up.

Cheviot wrote... 
My reasoning is supported by the fact it didn't help Sovereign.  Also, we have different interpretations of the Catalyst's "mission": you think it prizes the Reaper Cycles above all.  I think it prizes the best solution to the conflict between organics and synthetics above all.  The failure of Sovereign wasn't a defeat for the Catalyst, as far as I can see; it was the first sign to it that this Cycle was different.  It can afford to let things develop without it's intervention.  I mean, even when Shepard is talking to it, the Catalyst holds all the cards, the Reaper forces are still a threat.  And if I'm right, if it values the best solution to the problem any other concern, it explains why it did not help Sovereign.

If anything my points demonstrate that the writers forgot about the events of Mass Effect 1.  The faiure of Sovereign was a defeat for the Catalyst.  The Catalyst controls the Reapers.  So you are saying that the Catalyst didn't open the relays because he didn't want to?  You keep saying the Catalyst doesn't intervine, and from the story that seems to be true.  But go deeper than that.  Think about it.  So you are saying the creator and controller of the Reapers doesn't care about what happens to them?  He doesn't care if they fail?  Why would he do that?  It doesn't make any sense why he wouldn't want to intervine, the Catalyst values it's mission above all else.  It believes that if it fails all organics will eventually be eradicated, and it can't fail that mission.  I'm trying to say that the Catalyst's actions make no sense given his characteristics.  A character can't deviate from their characteristics without good reason and right now there is no good reason.  Not helping Sovereign is completely against his characteristics, so I will continue to call that bad writing.

Cheviot wrote... 
It's not that insane if you consider that most wars end with the representatives of either side signing a peace treaty.  The same people who authorized the murder of thousands or millions sign an agreement to cease hostilities.  Besides, it's clear that hardly anyone knew the Catalyst also created the Reapers.  Maybe the original designers did (if they were the ones who designed the Catalyst) but that little tidbit was probably lost in one of the Catalyst's attempts to get rid of the designs.

Also, it isn't the only situation where this thing happens; for instance, the Krogans recieve a Genophage cure from the people who gave them it in the first place.

No no no man.  The Crucible is not a peace treaty.  This is a false analogy if I've ever seen one.  The Crucible is a weapon designed to stop the Reapers, this much is made true in the Mars mission.  The Crucible much more similar to the atomic bomb in WWII.

Yes it is true that probably no one knew that the Catalyst created the Reapers.  We've already been over this,
remember?  

"That isn't even addressing what Twilight is saying.  It makes no sense why the Crucible is designed to interface with the Star Child because no one new of its existance.  Vendetta said the Citadel is the Catalyst.  He never said that the Catalyst is an AI that resides on the Citadel.  He obviously didnt know about the Star Child." 

Now we are just going over the same thing.  He is wholly unnecessary.  We have already been over this.  You can say the Catalyst is necessary all you want, but remember, the Crucible is a device.  A device based on fictional technology in a fictional universe. It was clearly stated several times in game by Liara and Hackett that were not sure how it was going to work or if it was going to work, so you cannot argue what it needs to work.  If you took out the Star Child, the writers could have said the Crucible connected to the Citadel and it worked and absolutely no one would have had a problem with that.  That is exactly the point I'm trying to make.

 

Modifié par elitehunter34, 18 juillet 2012 - 07:56 .

[Cheviot]

elitehunter34 wrote...
No, no it doesn't mean that.  By chaos he means organic synthetic conflict.  He doesn't want that.  The reason why the Catalyst wouldn't tell Shepard about control is that the Catalyst shouldn't trust Shepard with his mission.  Let me explain.

So let's say Shepard trusts the Catalyst believes that the Crucible will work.  So Shepard picks the Control option. Now Shepard controls the Reapers, and there is no more Catalyst.  However, what if Shepard doesn't believe that synthetics will always rebel against organics?  The Catalyst would realize this.  The Catalyst believes that synthetics will always try to destroy organics.  Even with Reaper control, the Catalyst will assume that that might not be enough.  After all, it only takes one time to wipe out all organics, and they are gone forever.  So the Catalyst would never present Shepard the Control option because Shepard might let synthetics rise up that will kill all organics, even if its an accident.  The whole reason the Catalyst made the cycles is because it is the only surefire way to stop synthetics from rising up.

To get to the end, Shepard has to resolve the Geth-Quarian conflict.  By doing so, he demonstrates that it can be resolved without the Reapers doing it their way.  So if he does so once, he can do so again.  Also, considering that most organics were against AI's because of the Geth, they may be more inclined to restrict their use of Synthetics further after their experience with the Reapers, or at least keep their synthetics at pre-sapient levels. 

So you are saying the creator and controller of the Reapers doesn't care about what happens to them?

That is exactly what I'm saying.  The Catalyst says as much; it says they are it's "solution"; it likens them to fire, something that is made only for it's function, simply a tool for a job.  It never talks about them in terms of what they want or what it wants for them; the Catalyst is only concerned about how well they do their job. 

This is the thing I'm having trouble getting across: As I understand it, the Catalyst cares about nothing other than finding the best solution for the problem it was designed to solve.  If the possibility of a better solution presents itself, it's going to see if it can work.  That's why it lets Sovereign fail.  To see how things play out.

Besides, it's not as if Harbinger is worried about Sovereign's failure.  What does an extra two or three years matter compared to the couple of centuries it takes to harvest anyway?  The Catalyst isn't risking the mission by letting Sovereign fail; it isn't risking much of anything, but it stands to gain a better solution and perhaps even a resolution to the whole conflict.

No no no man.  The Crucible is not a peace treaty.  This is a false analogy if I've ever seen one.  The Crucible is a weapon designed to stop the Reapers, this much is made true in the Mars mission.  The Crucible much more similar to the atomic bomb in WWII.

In terms of power, I can see the atomic bomb analogy (especially in a low-EMS Destroy ending) but here's my thinking behind bringing up peace treaties: basically, I think this is one of the things the conversation between Shepard and the Catalyst is - a peace negotiation - and each choice can be seen as analogy for certain terms of a treaty.  The Destroy ending is clearest: it's the decommissioning of weapons; the Control ending is the losing side giving their territories over to the conquerer, and Synthesis is an alliance between the combatants.

You can say the Catalyst is necessary all you want, but remember, the Crucible is a device.  A device based on fictional technology in a fictional universe. It was clearly stated several times in game by Liara and Hackett that were not sure how it was going to work or if it was going to work, so you cannot argue what it needs to work.  If you took out the Star Child, the writers could have said the Crucible connected to the Citadel and it worked and absolutely no one would have had a problem with that.  That is exactly the point I'm trying to make.

Maybe no one would've had a problem, or maybe they would've had a different problem with the ending instead.  We'll never know. 



 

Modifié par Cheviot, 18 juillet 2012 - 08:56 .

[elitehunter34]

Cheviot wrote...
To get to the end, Shepard has to resolve the Geth-Quarian conflict.  By doing so, he demonstrates that it can be resolved without the Reapers doing it their way.  So if he does so once, he can do so again.  Also, considering that most organics were against AI's because of the Geth, they may be more inclined to restrict their use of Synthetics further after their experience with the Reapers, or at least keep their synthetics at pre-sapient levels.

I really don't get your point.  The Catalyst believes that conflict is inevitable between organics and sythetics.  This is why he calls Synthesis the ideal solution.  The Catalyst doesn't care about how you resolved the Geth-Quarian conflict, it only cares about finding a solution to its problem, and it admits that Synthesis is a better solution that its current one.

Cheviot wrote... 
That is exactly what I'm saying.  The Catalyst says as much; it says they are it's "solution"; it likens them to fire, something that is made only for it's function, simply a tool for a job.  It never talks about them in terms of what they want or what it wants for them; the Catalyst is only concerned about how well they do their job. 

This is the thing I'm having trouble getting across: As I understand it, the Catalyst cares about nothing other than finding the best solution for the problem it was designed to solve.  If the possibility of a better solution presents itself, it's going to see if it can work.  That's why it lets Sovereign fail.  To see how things play out.

Besides, it's not as if Harbinger is worried about Sovereign's failure.  What does an extra two or three years matter compared to the couple of centuries it takes to harvest anyway?  The Catalyst isn't risking the mission by letting Sovereign fail; it isn't risking much of anything, but it stands to gain a better solution and perhaps even a resolution to the whole conflict.

You're entire argument hinges on a very strange assumption, with your assumption being that the Catalyst wants to see what happens if Sovereign fails.  There is absolutely no evidence to support this claim, and quite frankly I don't see the logic behind it.  How would Sovereign failing present an opportunity for a new solution?  The Catalyst determined that the Reaper solution was the best one for millions of years.  How would Sovereign failing present a new solution?  Why would the Catalyst choose to be unhelpful?  The Catalyst has been presumably running simulations for millions of years to find better solutions and he never found one.  

Cheviot wrote...  
In terms of power, I can see the atomic bomb analogy (especially in a low-EMS Destroy ending) but here's my thinking behind bringing up peace treaties: basically, I think this is one of the things the conversation between Shepard and the Catalyst is - a peace negotiation - and each choice can be seen as analogy for certain terms of a treaty.  The Destroy ending is clearest: it's the decommissioning of weapons; the Control ending is the losing side giving their territories over to the conquerer, and Synthesis is an alliance between the combatants.

What?  I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding the ending.  The Catalyst wants a new solution to the organic/synthetic conflict.  He says that this is because the Crucible changed him and opened up new opportunities.  For whatever reason, he has to tell you about Destroy and Control, and he doesn't like either of those solutions because they don't solve the problem, because new synthetics can rise up and destroy organics.  He believes Synthesis is the best solution because it fixes the problem by giving organics synthetics technology and it gives synthetics full understanding of organics.  He believes this will prevent conflict between organics and synthetics forever.

You're treaty analogy is wrong because the Catalyst isn't looking for peace.  He doesn't care for peace.  All he wants is a solution to his problem.  Up until now the Reapers are his solution. He could easily send the Reapers after the Crucible and destroy it in minutes.  He didn't have to help you.  He brought you up because he needs you to activate the Crucible, and the Crucible can be used to solve his problem.  This is why I have a problem with him presenting you Control and Destroy.  They aren't solutions to his problem.  Right now most people say that he is giving them to you because the Crucible forced him too.  This is supported in game by the Catalyst saying "The Crucible changed me".  I find that explanation incredibly lacking, because the Crucible was never intended to interface with him, it shouldn't make him say a thing. 


 

Modifié par elitehunter34, 18 juillet 2012 - 09:34 .

[The Twilight God]

[quote]Cerberus would've taken the Citadel the first time if it hadn't been for Shepard. Since Shepard wasn't there the second time, Cerberus and the Reapers were able to succeed.[/quote]
Incorrect.

Cerberus was attempting to assassinate the non-human members of the Council in order to leave Udina, and by extension TIM, in control. Cerberus utilized sleeper agents and the element of surprise. They no longer have this advantage. C-sec has upped security, made numerous arrests and even dismantled concealed Cerberus equipment. Cerberus’s foothold on the Citadel was crushed. Even if what you said was possible it should be shown in an in-game cutscene.

Furthermore, there is no evidence that Cerberus had the ability to actually take control of the Citadel through sheer military force. If they could they would have. Shepard stopped an assassination attempt instigated by a small force. If Cerberus had the means to take over with brute force there is nothing Shepard could have done by himself to stop a literal invading army. As great as he is he is only one man. Defending a highly defensible single point of entry wouldn’t apply to the Citadel like it did on Elysium (if he has that background).

[quote]Why? Were the Collectors introduced in Mass Effect 1? No.[/quote]
The collectors are nothing; irrelevant to the overall ME plot progression. It would be like asking why scions weren’t introduced in ME1. They are just filler that gives the actual story a central focus. The actual meat of ME2’s story is the personal stories of Shepard’s crew which, as nicely written as they were, did not serve a greater purpose. Only Mordin and Tali’s missions, along with Legion’s conversations on the Normandy, set up some of the major themes in ME3 and those missions are maybe 5% of the ME2? And even that 5% is optional and unnecessary for ME3 except that you need to have at least recruited Legion to have a chance at allying with the geth. I think.

[quote]Anyway why would the Collectors have information on the Crucible? The Catalyst says that even it was sure all evidence of the Crucible had been destroyed in previous Cycles. And if the Collectors and Reapers had any indication of the existence of the plans and where they were, then ME3 would've been a short game: their first target would've been the Mars Archives, and the galaxy would be doomed.[/quote]
The Reapers did not know about the Mars Archives. Otherwise they would have destroyed it.
Why might the collectors have information? The same reason the Mars archive has information. All that is required is scraps of data or records of the prothean war with the Reapers that allude to some technology the protheans possessed in the past after EDI’s analysis of compiled files. This can then lead scientist to the right places within the Mars Archive. But we have to remember that ME2 was wasted. Its entire story should have revolved around figuring out the reaper’s motivations and seeking a means to defeat them. It’s too late to change that now. I can only work with what is currently there.

[quote]The various races only started joining the construction effort once the Alliance started understanding the plans and started building it, and once Shepard solved the centuries-old divisions between them. The resources weren't given easily.[/quote]
Yes, that is what happened. You’ve just reiterated the screenplay. However, that screenplay you just ran off isn’t self explanatory. The question is, "Why did they all join the construction effort?" Why are they diverting resources to it?

You seem to have missed the point. The point is they have no reason to commit to the Crucible. There is no reason given for anyone to expect the failed device to do anything other than fail again. Not until later in the game and even that is based on blind optimism.

[quote]Even if we ignore all the improvements made to the Crucible, the current Cycle's main improvement was uniting so that the Crucible could be put into place and an Organic can reach the Catalyst for the first time in millions of years.

That's a pretty fundamental improvement.[/quote]

That’s not an improvement to the Crucible at all. All the forces uniting are meaningless if the device fails. More ships do not equal a more powerful or more reliable Crucible construction. In fact, with all the scientist working on it none of them even know what it does. It’s as if they were following oral directs to put Lego together with no clue what to expect when it was done. They might as well have had random krogan building it. What’s the point in top scientists that provide no real insight, but rather, just follow a blueprint like a construction worker with no deep understanding of architectural principles?

Are you simply defending the ending for the sake of it? Your response here doesn’t even address the topic.

[quote]Of course it's absurd, because it doesn't need husks, it's got the Keepers. It's also absurd because it doesn't need to do anything. Why? Because it isn't concerned with making sure that the Reapers win at any cost. It only starts getting involved once it becomes clear that it's previous solution no longer works.[/quote]
What? Again, you are not addressing the subject matter.

The Catalyst is not concerned with the Reapers winning???? Huh??? I’m finding it hard to take you seriously.

[quote]Legion's conversations in ME2 and the mission in the Geth Concensus suggest what would cause this conflict; once the Organics realise the possibility that the Synthetics can surpass them, they worry that the Synthetics will eventually want to enslave them, since that's what Organics are doing to the the newlyself-aware Synthetics. [/quote]
Why would a superior synthetic being enslave an inferior organic being? For what? Slave labour? The synthetic requires no sleep or food, doesn’t get tired, has faster reaction time, can carry more weight, doesn’t get bored and can work in extreme environments. What possible use does a synthetic have to act against an organic other than self defense?

[quote]Pre-emptively, Organics will attempt to solve this by shutting down the Synthetics, who will refuse because to them, it will be like death. This is where the rebellion and the conflict starts.[/quote]
Or not.

The Catalyst’s argument is one of a conflict of understanding. Apparently, if synthetics understand organics and organics are perfected via technology there will be no conflict. Care to elaborate on this? Because I don’t see how we jump from a blanket statement to synthetics destroying what they don’t understand.

[quote]Yeah, the extinction of all higher forms of life happened. This is why the Catalyst sees the Reaper
Cycle as the best solution until Shepard reaches it: it is better that organic life be reduced to a small number of young but sapient races every 50,000 years than to the level of plants and small mammals.[/quote]

Incorrect. If all higher life forms went extinct then the Reapers would not exist. If a credible threat from some other synthetic life was present there would be nothing the organics could do to about. The fact that they had the power to create the reapers, and the reapers the power to enact a "solution", contradicts the claim that the organics were helpless against these unknown synthetics.

If we accept your assertion then the Reapers are the problem as you are asserting that the problem is that only advanced species are exterminated, which is what the Reapers are doing themselves. In other words, their solution is the problem they are trying to solve. No, the reapers assert that synthetics will wipe out ALL organic life, not just the species that created them. The Catalyst makes the distinction that it does not wipe out ALL organic life, just advanced species. As opposed to unregulated non-reaper synthetics who will destroy ALL organic life.

[quote]You should stick around and watch the new endings in the EC, I think you'll enjoy them. If the Stargazer scene in the original or that text that tells you the Reapers were defeated wasn't enough evidence that the Reapers were defeated, then the new endings show without a doubt that the Catalyst's offer was genuine and what it described happening in each ending did come to pass.[/quote]
Are you serious? Shepard is not the galaxy’s #1 rated psychic. He doesn’t have the luxury of the player to see how everything turns out. As the options are presented in-game there is no reason whatsoever for Shepard to trust the word of the Reapers.

[quote]Why do you think the Catalyst is offering the three choices in the first place? Because the very fact that Shepard is there in front of it shows that this Cycle is different, and so a new solution is needed. [/quote]
Unless you refuse. Then apparently the current solution is just fine. I also like how its voice changes back to the menacing reaper voice of doom when it says, "So be it."

Why would the Reapers offer me alternatives to destroying them? Hmmm? That’s a hard one…. Hmmm? I don’t know… maybe THEY DON’T WANT TO BE DESTROYED. Nothing has changed by Shepard’s mere presence than the fact that he has them by the balls. So of course now they want to "negotiate" a new solution and play the dumb mindless robot routine.

[quote]Again I agree it is absurd, because hat's not what the Catalyst (I guess that's what you were referring to) is doing. It isn't designed to work in concert with the Reapers.[/quote]
No, it isn’t designed to work with the Reapers, but that’s exactly what it does.

Both Control and Synthesis are the Brat’s doing. The only thing the Crucible does is release Reaper killing rays. Per Star Brat’s own words the Crucible is just a crude device capable of releasing massive amounts of energy, but adaptable. And the Star Brat adapts it alright. It is the Star Brat who can use it to allow Shepard to take Control or initiated Synthesis. Those two options would not be possible without Star Brat facilitating them. Even Destroy seems to involve bypassing some contraption that the Catalyst has in place. It’s totally wonky. It should have simply activated and destroyed the Reapers when it docked with the Citadel Tower or a holographic control interface should have popped up with maybe a VI interface. At that point it is revealed that Shepard has 2 more options. But that’s not what happens. No, we get this pre-made room on the Citadel custom built to interact with the Crucible. So did the Catalyst expect the Crucible or not?

[quote]It designed the Reapers to solve the problem of the organic-synthetic conflict. It left them to their work while it waited for them to fail, at which point it involved itself in the conflict again to create a new solution[/quote]
Where are you getting this idea that the Catalyst was dormant for millions of years oblivious to everything around it? I suppose even the reapers didn’t know about it even though the Catalyst is the collective will of the reapers who "controls them".

The same people who made the original cuttlefish dreadnaught also made the Catalyst. The Catalyst was given or somehow took control of the dreadnaughts. Hence the first real reaper wasn’t born until the original dreadnaughts harvested their creators at the behest of the Catalyst and pumped their fluid into it. That first real reaper, I believe, is Harbinger.

[quote]Also, Vendetta reveals that the Protheans inferred the Catalyst's existence.[/quote]
No, the Catalyst was the Citadel as far as the protheans were concerned. The Crucible needed to use the mass relays to channel the Crucible’s power across the entire galaxy. If they simply used it by itself it would have killed all the reapers within a few hundred light years, but that would be it. The Reapers controlled the mass relays in all other cycles so this wasn’t an option for the past species.

Vendetta knew nothing about any Reaper King chilling in the Citadel. Otherwise, we would have learned about the Star Brat during the Cronos Station mission.
　

Modifié par The Twilight God, 18 juillet 2012 - 10:27 .

[The Twilight God]

Unata wrote...

The one thing I have a difficult time understanding is IF the catalyst is the Citadel and the Citadel was built by the Reapers, it IS Reaper tech, one rather huge one at that and all through ME series anyone coming in direct contact for
a time eventually becomes indoctrinated, why then are not everyone living on the Citadel indoctrinated? even a dead Reaper indoctrinates as in ME 2 where they get the IFF.

Considering the Catalyst controls the Reapers one would think it would be the most powerful piece of Reaper Tech.

It's the technology of those who made the Reapers, but not not made by the Reapers. So it is reaper tech, per say, but it isn't necessarily the same kind of tech that the reapers developed to indoctrinate.  

[The Twilight God]

MASS EFFECT 3 EXPANSION PACK
ULTIMATE EDITION
 
Theme, Narrative and Consistency Problems… and Band-Aids

Coming Soon

Modifié par The Twilight God, 21 juillet 2012 - 03:27 .

[Justin2k]

I'm sorry but this whole thing is a joke. The fact they have to bring out an extended cut is a joke.

Shepard should kill Harbinger, thus "defeating" the reapers. Then he can live/die/have babies whatever.

That is the ending. That is all that needed to be done.

This whole "art" thing is ridiculous. Bioware should have held up their hands and admitted they were trying to be too clever and just rewrote the thing.

[_FLANDERS]

Good post but this is just the tip of the iceberg, there is more.

[darthoptimus003]

Justin2k wrote...

I'm sorry but this whole thing is a joke. The fact they have to bring out an extended cut is a joke.

Shepard should kill Harbinger, thus "defeating" the reapers. Then he can live/die/have babies whatever.

That is the ending. That is all that needed to be done.

This whole "art" thing is ridiculous. Bioware should have held up their hands and admitted they were trying to be too clever and just rewrote the thing.

hell yeah +1000000000000

[The Twilight God]

Justin2k wrote...

I'm sorry but this whole thing is a joke. The fact they have to bring out an extended cut is a joke.

Shepard should kill Harbinger, thus "defeating" the reapers. Then he can live/die/have babies whatever.

That is the ending. That is all that needed to be done.

This whole "art" thing is ridiculous. Bioware should have held up their hands and admitted they were trying to be too clever and just rewrote the thing.

They are going to have to release an expansion to fix this mess.

$39.99 for the Mass Effect 3: The What it Should Have Been Expansion Pack

Modifié par The Twilight God, 19 juillet 2012 - 02:30 .

[The Twilight God]

FLANDERS wrote...

Good post but this is just the tip of the iceberg, there is more.

Too much more... *sigh*

[Marauder Shieldz]

saber00005 wrote...

Agreed, but do you seriously think Bioware will take the time in reading this? yet alone explain the ending more than what they did? Don't get me wrong, I love ME3, but I still am not happy with the ending. Does NOT have that much clossure. I want to know about our squad mates, including the Love Interest. That's what we want!