1214 réponses à ce sujet

[LiarasShield]

pirate1802 wrote...

Liarasshield wrote...Well in this case they didn't need a explaination and they were fine being individualistc but not only did they alter the story or give a new antagonist in the last 5 or 10 minutes they tryed to justify his means by saying


My synthetic reapers are here to kill you so that you won't make other synthetics that will kill you his claims before the extended was that he was trying to save us from synthetics and yet infected the geth network and used the geth against as he tried to claim that they were trying to protect us from synthetics RAWRRR.

1. Giving an explanation to something =/= Altering the story. I showed how the reapers can be "independent" yet controlled by the reapers. And wanting an explanation or not is a personal thing. You didn't want an explanation, I did, so it's good for me I guess.

2. Its a rogue AI, what do you expect? If all villains had perfectly sane logic and behaved normally they'll not be villains in the first place. The villains of Assassin's Creed operate on similar frakked up logic, they believe all of humanity must be mind controlled or they will kill each other in conflict. In Asimov's I' Robot, the AI V.I.K.I believes humanity must be dominated to save it from itself. There are many examples villains with frakked up logic. People don't try to make sense of them because they aren't supposed to. If the catalyst behaved logically it wouldn't be reaping. It would have been mediating peace, yet it went cuckoo and ended up here. there is no sense in its logic because there isn't supposed to be any.

And If you know that the previous catalyst was twisted or wrong why do you think shepard becoming the catalyst in control for the future would fare any better when he or she is now in the same role that the catalyst onced have?

[TMA LIVE]

Lizardviking wrote...

Anyone got a satisfying answer for the how the catalyst does not completely invalidate ME1 by creating a major plothole for why Sovereign was needed?

In-game? Not yet. Though I'm hearing of a possibility that the Catalyst simply wants to remain unknown to the Reapers, to prevent someone like Harb from taking over. To influence them, without making it's presents known.

My theory is that it's really Harb. Who either became the Citadel AI after the Citadel was captured, or there never was a Citadel AI, and he's just projecting himself to you, like he did in Arrival.

[Pitznik]

maaaze wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

We don't know much about Catalyst. We don't know, if he is even there, able to manifest, without the Crucible. The fact "space magic interface" seems to be part of the Citadel, and not of the Crucible, suggests that Crucible was originally part of the Citadel.

Yes we know very little about the origins of the Crucible. We know that the designs have changed many times...and that each cycle added their knowlege into the design.
So I can´t see how the crucible could be a original part of the citadel if it has changed so many times and it in its early stages it was not even designed with the citadel in mind. 

We know that it is adaptive and design with a purpose in mind.
The Crucible is one piece ...the citadel another. Combined they are something new, that can change the Universe.

But the whole Catalyst scene seems to happen on the Citadel. I think either countless cycles recreated the missing part (with some modifications), thinking they build something new - propably original blueprints were damaged or partial. In fact to build it, the original designer should know about the Catalyst or at least deduct his existence.

[Pitznik]

LiarasShield wrote...

And If you know that the previous catalyst was twisted or wrong why do you think shepard becoming the catalyst in control for the future would fare any better when he or she is now in the same role that the catalyst onced have?

Catalyst is a machine, amoral. Shepard used to be human, and he's as ethical as you make him to be.

[DirtyPhoenix]

LiarasShield wrote...
And If you know that the previous catalyst was twisted or wrong why do you think shepard becoming the catalyst in control for the future would fare any better when he or she is now in the same role that the catalyst onced have?

That's a risk with control, I'll admit. Better ask control supporters Seriously though, such possibilities exist in every ending. We just need to weigh the pros vs the cons and coe up with what we believe is the best for the galaxy.

Piznik wrote...
Catalyst is a machine, amoral. Shepard used to be human, and he's as ethical as you make him to be.

That is a good explanation. the catalyst was created an AI (as far as we know). he had no human/organic insight, which is why he sees reaperization as preservation, genocide as ascension and so on. Shepard was human once, he has an organic insight the previous catalyst lacked.

Modifié par pirate1802, 10 août 2012 - 05:15 .

[LiarasShield]

Pitznik wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

And If you know that the previous catalyst was twisted or wrong why do you think shepard becoming the catalyst in control for the future would fare any better when he or she is now in the same role that the catalyst onced have?

Catalyst is a machine, amoral. Shepard used to be human, and he's as ethical as you make him to be.

Still if you know the catalyst is wrong or evil why would you think shepard becoming the new ai or virtual intelligence over the long run play any better and this still requires even more speculation and headcannoning

[Seival]

LiarasShield wrote...

Seival wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

Seival wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

Heres my issues with all the endings


In pretty much every ending the reapers live


In Control we have a new catalyst that may continue the cycle or cause the reapers to destroy organics again in the future

Synthesis forces everybody to be part synthetic or organic against their will and suggests that everybody has to be the same or think the same for peace to even exist

Even in destroy we don't really beat the reapers the catalyst talks about the peace won't last and that the reapers and synthetics will be rebuilt by future generations

And it doesn't matter if you have a bunch dead reapers or reaper tech everywhere without the reapers knowledge of how to rebuild the relays they still can't rebuilds the relays in the destroy ending you can't rebuild something if you don't have the knowledge to build it in the first place.

Otherwise you may cause more destruction then you would want

Did you expect that the final choice of The Trilogy will be easy?

...That's silly. No offence

Basiclly your reply was you can't handle being a villian or monster am I right?

Well playing me2 and reading the interviews pre release of me3 I thought our actions and hardwork would actually effect the ending even if we had lost half of our fleets that we would be able to have shepard live if we tried hard enough and be able to rebuild the galactic community to have a victory ending similar to mass effect 1 or 2

Sorry that my expectations from the previous games couldn't have been kept in this one

Basically, I think that everything depends on your own Shepard (especially in case of Control) and on how well Galactic Civilization learned the lesson. If you think that everything will be ok after some particular ending, then it will be ok.

...In other words, I think you should try to accept the endings as they are, and choose the one you like the most.

I was already mislead by the interviews before this games release I shouldn't have to speculate or headcannon wether we beat THE DAMN ENEMY OR WETHER SHEPARD LIVES OR CAN REBUILD THE COMMUNITY

In me1 and me2 we didn't have to speculate about defeating our foe or about helping the citadel or the other races as a whole

Simple fact is even for a cliff hanger this game pushes it too far I mean in god of war or halo or many other games that have much smaller cliff hangers at least you know they accomplished their goals or they do actually live here in this not so much

ME1 and ME2 wasn't the ending of The Trilogy. Besides, ME Trilogy will not be the last story in ME Universe.

I think BioWare observe people expectations, and this might have an impact on the future games. So, accepting the endings as they are and sharing your thoughts about them is the best way, I believe

[LiarasShield]

Seival wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

Seival wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

Seival wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

Heres my issues with all the endings


In pretty much every ending the reapers live


In Control we have a new catalyst that may continue the cycle or cause the reapers to destroy organics again in the future

Synthesis forces everybody to be part synthetic or organic against their will and suggests that everybody has to be the same or think the same for peace to even exist

Even in destroy we don't really beat the reapers the catalyst talks about the peace won't last and that the reapers and synthetics will be rebuilt by future generations

And it doesn't matter if you have a bunch dead reapers or reaper tech everywhere without the reapers knowledge of how to rebuild the relays they still can't rebuilds the relays in the destroy ending you can't rebuild something if you don't have the knowledge to build it in the first place.

Otherwise you may cause more destruction then you would want

Did you expect that the final choice of The Trilogy will be easy?

...That's silly. No offence

Basiclly your reply was you can't handle being a villian or monster am I right?

Well playing me2 and reading the interviews pre release of me3 I thought our actions and hardwork would actually effect the ending even if we had lost half of our fleets that we would be able to have shepard live if we tried hard enough and be able to rebuild the galactic community to have a victory ending similar to mass effect 1 or 2

Sorry that my expectations from the previous games couldn't have been kept in this one

Basically, I think that everything depends on your own Shepard (especially in case of Control) and on how well Galactic Civilization learned the lesson. If you think that everything will be ok after some particular ending, then it will be ok.

...In other words, I think you should try to accept the endings as they are, and choose the one you like the most.

I was already mislead by the interviews before this games release I shouldn't have to speculate or headcannon wether we beat THE DAMN ENEMY OR WETHER SHEPARD LIVES OR CAN REBUILD THE COMMUNITY

In me1 and me2 we didn't have to speculate about defeating our foe or about helping the citadel or the other races as a whole

Simple fact is even for a cliff hanger this game pushes it too far I mean in god of war or halo or many other games that have much smaller cliff hangers at least you know they accomplished their goals or they do actually live here in this not so much

ME1 and ME2 wasn't the ending of The Trilogy. Besides, ME Trilogy will not be the last story in ME Universe.

I think BioWare observe people expectations, and this might have an impact on the future games. So, accepting the endings as they are and sharing your thoughts about them is the best way, I believe

answer my previous post please

[DirtyPhoenix]

Pitznik wrote...

maaaze wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

We don't know much about Catalyst. We don't know, if he is even there, able to manifest, without the Crucible. The fact "space magic interface" seems to be part of the Citadel, and not of the Crucible, suggests that Crucible was originally part of the Citadel.

Yes we know very little about the origins of the Crucible. We know that the designs have changed many times...and that each cycle added their knowlege into the design.
So I can´t see how the crucible could be a original part of the citadel if it has changed so many times and it in its early stages it was not even designed with the citadel in mind. 

We know that it is adaptive and design with a purpose in mind.
The Crucible is one piece ...the citadel another. Combined they are something new, that can change the Universe.

But the whole Catalyst scene seems to happen on the Citadel. I think either countless cycles recreated the missing part (with some modifications), thinking they build something new - propably original blueprints were damaged or partial. In fact to build it, the original designer should know about the Catalyst or at least deduct his existence.

They may have, they may have inferred the catalyst's existance without actually being in the decision chamber, like the Prothean VI guessed the existance of a master behind the reapers based on the patterns.

Modifié par pirate1802, 10 août 2012 - 05:26 .

[Pitznik]

LiarasShield wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

And If you know that the previous catalyst was twisted or wrong why do you think shepard becoming the catalyst in control for the future would fare any better when he or she is now in the same role that the catalyst onced have?

Catalyst is a machine, amoral. Shepard used to be human, and he's as ethical as you make him to be.

Still if you know the catalyst is wrong or evil why would you think shepard becoming the new ai or virtual intelligence over the long run play any better and this still requires even more speculation and headcannoning

Because I believe in my Paragon Shepard, there is no better explanation, I'm afraid. On the other hand I wouldn't put my favourite renegade "Butcher of Torfan" Shepard anywhere near the control interface. Lucky, he would much rather see Reapers destroyed.

[Applepie_Svk]

maaaze wrote...


I wouldn´t take anything Applepie says seriously..he likes to troll...here and there...and brings things up out of context.

But to the original discussion....I have facts to back this up...listen to the dialoge with the prothean A.I. on the cerberus base and you will find out that the crucible was not designed at first to be combined with the citadel...so it could not be a part of it originally.

Said someone who was arguing almost 10 pages about meaning of sentence with few native english speaking people: The device you refer to as the Crucible is little more than a power source...

And to your second assumption - Catalyst knew more about Crucible than he admit, how do you know that plans for Crucible wasn´t created by Catalyst himself or his creators? So again it´s your headcannon VS mine...
What Vendetta knew become irrelevant when Catalyst came to scene, Vendetta said that in some point someone create Crucible - but none knew when, why and how, from other side Catalyst exactly knew what is this device, how it evolved and about its creators but he refuse to answer.

Modifié par Applepie_Svk, 10 août 2012 - 05:35 .

[SeptimusMagistos]

LiarasShield wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

And If you know that the previous catalyst was twisted or wrong why do you think shepard becoming the catalyst in control for the future would fare any better when he or she is now in the same role that the catalyst onced have?

Catalyst is a machine, amoral. Shepard used to be human, and he's as ethical as you make him to be.

Still if you know the catalyst is wrong or evil why would you think shepard becoming the new ai or virtual intelligence over the long run play any better and this still requires even more speculation and headcannoning

That's only a problem if you assume that the Catalyst's problems arose from it being an AI. I do not.

[Seival]

LiarasShield wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

And If you know that the previous catalyst was twisted or wrong why do you think shepard becoming the catalyst in control for the future would fare any better when he or she is now in the same role that the catalyst onced have?

Catalyst is a machine, amoral. Shepard used to be human, and he's as ethical as you make him to be.

Still if you know the catalyst is wrong or evil why would you think shepard becoming the new ai or virtual intelligence over the long run play any better and this still requires even more speculation and headcannoning

Each ending leaves some questions for players to answer. You can prefer any anding only with "headcannoning". There is no "best ending" there are different ways to stop the Reapers. You just choose the way you like the most.

[LiarasShield]

Each of the endings feels like the reapers win and having to headcannon or speculate otherwise jsut isn't worth it I wouldn't have wasted my time playing the game if it wasn't for the misleading interviews saying your actions would matter anyway

[DirtyPhoenix]

LiarasShield wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

And If you know that the previous catalyst was twisted or wrong why do you think shepard becoming the catalyst in control for the future would fare any better when he or she is now in the same role that the catalyst onced have?

Catalyst is a machine, amoral. Shepard used to be human, and he's as ethical as you make him to be.

Still if you know the catalyst is wrong or evil why would you think shepard becoming the new ai or virtual intelligence over the long run play any better and this still requires even more speculation and headcannoning

In the long run its easy to see any choice devolving into chaos. Control leads to Shepards restarting the cycles, in destroy someone finds a way to reactivate the reapers, in synthesis the people's DNA starts to... rust? And well refuse is what it is. All we can be sure of is the near future. I don't see catalyst-shepard going rogue in the near future. Not paragon SHepards atleast. War and conflict will always be there, it'll be a very boring world otherwise.

[Seival]

LiarasShield wrote...

Each of the endings feels like the reapers win and having to headcannon or speculate otherwise jsut isn't worth it I wouldn't have wasted my time playing the game if it wasn't for the misleading interviews saying your actions would matter anyway

Try to observe the endings from all possible points of view. This might give you the whole new perspective on them

[LiarasShield]

Seival wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

Each of the endings feels like the reapers win and having to headcannon or speculate otherwise jsut isn't worth it I wouldn't have wasted my time playing the game if it wasn't for the misleading interviews saying your actions would matter anyway

Try to observe the endings from all possible points of view. This might give you the whole new perspective on them

I thought mass effect 3 would be just as good as the previous ones but they aren't to me and the only reason I keep playing is for the multiplayer

[AresKeith]

having to headcanon the ending is a sad cop-out to a rushed game

[LiarasShield]

AresKeith wrote...

having to headcanon the ending is a sad cop-out to a rushed game

Yup I definitly agree

[DirtyPhoenix]

LiarasShield wrote...

Each of the endings feels like the reapers win and having to headcannon or speculate otherwise jsut isn't worth it I wouldn't have wasted my time playing the game if it wasn't for the misleading interviews saying your actions would matter anyway

I can understand the reaper-won vibe in synthesis but you didn't feel you won in destroy too? That's what your goal was right? C'mon..Reapers lying dead.. troops cheering. Thats victory enough for me. Yes the part in rubble sucks, and so does the sacrifices of Geth and EDI but we were repeatedly told this war would require sacrifices. So I was ready for it. Not that I choose destroy often..

And yes the devs did mislead a bit but Mass Effect 3 is still a damn good game IMO. It has its flaws but which game doesn't?

[LiarasShield]

pirate1802 wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

Each of the endings feels like the reapers win and having to headcannon or speculate otherwise jsut isn't worth it I wouldn't have wasted my time playing the game if it wasn't for the misleading interviews saying your actions would matter anyway

I can understand the reaper-won vibe in synthesis but you didn't feel you won in destroy too? That's what your goal was right? C'mon..Reapers lying dead.. troops cheering. Thats victory enough for me. Yes the part in rubble sucks, and so does the sacrifices of Geth and EDI but we were repeatedly told this war would require sacrifices. So I was ready for it. Not that I choose destroy often..

And yes the devs did mislead a bit but Mass Effect 3 is still a damn good game IMO. It has its flaws but which game doesn't?

Either the reapers come back in the next generation or a more powerful synthetic race will cause the destruction of the galaxy in the future no even in destroy I didn't see any victory yes I got to see reapers fall down

Yay I guess right

But if the next generation has to fight synthetics that are even more powerful then the reapers then no it still isn't a victory

And the catalyst ruins most of the endings for feeling like a possiable victory

Modifié par LiarasShield, 10 août 2012 - 05:48 .

[Pitznik]

LiarasShield wrote...

Either the reapers come back in the next generation or a more powerful synthetic race will cause the destruction of the galaxy in the future no even in destroy I didn't see any victory yes I got to see reapers fall down

Yay I guess right

But if the next generation has to fight synthetics that are even more powerful then the reapers then no it still isn't a victory

And the catalyst ruins most of the endings for feeling like a possiable victory

There is so much wrong in this post, I'm starting to feel hopeless about you. With such an attitude you could imagine every hero of every game got cancer next day after end credits. If you believe in starkid's BS so much, why bother stopping him? Just refuse and let your idol work in peace.

[DirtyPhoenix]

So what were you looking for in the endings? No matter what you do, there will always be a possibility of future conflict. Every ending, even the perfect ending you have in mind would lead to future conflict. There is simply no end of conflicts. I don't see why this is a problem.

And no the catalyst didn't spoil it for me, maybe it did for you but not for me. It gave me RGB coloured poison to kill it and I obliged.

Modifié par pirate1802, 10 août 2012 - 05:59 .

[LiarasShield]

Well pitznik and pirate you guys probably supported the endings before extended even came out so you can't understand where I'm coming from but that is fine


And Whose to say I didn't pick refuse it is the only ending I like lol

Modifié par LiarasShield, 10 août 2012 - 05:57 .

[Pitznik]

LiarasShield wrote...

Well pitznik and pirate you guys probably supported the endings before extended even came out so you can't understand where I'm coming from but that is fine


And Whose to say I didn't pick refuse it is the only ending I like lol

I'd rather win, than lose, but to each his own.