540 réponses à ce sujet

[silverexile17s]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...
No, we aren't "Almost there." Otherwise, this would have ended a long time ago.

Any New Solution will do, as long as it offers a resolution to the conflcit. Shepard's judgement is basically the defining element in this. Any Solution will do -- provided it's possible. Here at the end of all things, what you see is what you get with the ending choices.

"Almost there" references a future event, not the past.  This is not debatable, lol.


//cough//
So... why does the Catalyst yield the choice to Shepard?  He's obligated to do this in his programming right? 

Why is the Catalyst referenced at around the end of the Crucible's completion?

No, that's pretty damn debatible, "lol," since I've had to repeatedly re-state points that you either ignored or discounted with invalid points. We should have been "almost there" awhile ago, but we aren't, therefore we likely won't be anytime soon.

He doesn't have a choice in resisting the solutions, because finding a new one is paramount. However, Shepard's presence is a necessity for Synthesis -- an option the Catalyst only just now realizes is possible thanks to Shepard's half-synthetic DNA. Shepard is many factors -- Shepard led the galaxt to victory over the solution, so right there Shepard won the right to decide which option is better over the Catalyst. Shepard is also one of the few strong-willed enough to supplant him as the new Catalyst, and the only one with the hybrid DNA needed for Synthesis. Anyone else, either one or two of the options would be impossible. And even if there were others, they aren't Shepard -- AKA, the one that united the galaxy and beat the odds.
This is basically a unique scenerio -- the Catalyst must comply with one of the options to complete a new Solution, and the one person that survived to give that input is the one person that can make all three choices possible.

As to why it's refrenced, some theroize that "The Catalyst" is actually another cycle's name for the Citadel station. We know from Vendetta that the Citadel wasn't always called "the Citadel," and even goes as far as implying that the Protheans themselves had a different name for it (He says "in your cycle, it is refered to as the Citadel," implying that the Protheans didn't call it such). The idea is that the Catalyst adopted the name for itself.
Another version of this theroy is that some cycles found refrence to the name "Catalyst," and mistakenly assumed that this was the name/title of the Citadel itself, and not of an A.I. inside it.
Either way, the general belief is that when the cycles used the term "Catalyst," they always refrenced the station itself, and had no prior knowledge of an A.I. inside it.

Modifié par silverexile17s, 29 août 2013 - 07:15 .

[KaiserShep]

Since when does Shepard have semisynthetic DNA? The Catalyst does not mention that specifically, and I don't remember it being connected to the Crucible's functionality. When it mentions Shep being partly synthetic, I assumed it meant just the implants. It's my understanding that Shepard is augmented with cybernetics, but not right down to the actual genetic information.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 29 août 2013 - 07:42 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

silverexile17s wrote...

Name me one person that can make Synthesis work?
Name me one person that can make Control work that isn't dead or indoctrinated by now?
The only option that can be used by anyone and everyone is Destroy. Shepard is the only person that can make all three choices work. I pretty sure that makes him pretty damned important. I mean, where did you get the idea that Synthesis could work with anyone else besides the half-synthetic Shepard? Because last I checked, Shepard was the only one that could make more then one option work.

I admit you have an ... interesting perspective of the Catalyst. However, I still think that Shepard is the hero having to make an impossible choice like that -- genocide, dictatorship, or liniar evolution.

Tali. Tali'Zorah, unless you killed her, is the most heroic person in the entire story. Without Tali'Zorah, Shepard would not have been standing there. In fact, the entire galaxy would have been reaped. It was Tali's irrefutable evidence that got Shepard made first Human Spectre, Command of the Normandy SR-1, and thus allowed Shepard to defeat Saren and Sovereign at the Battle of the Citadel.

Tali has sufficient cybernetics to make synthesis work. She can fire a gun. And she is not indoctrinated or dead so the reapers didn't control her. She has more than enough heroism to do the job.

Shepard wasn't half-synthetic. She was partly synthetic. Dick Cheney is partly synthetic.

[Ridwan]

Yes it was odd, dumb and annoying. We're the freaking heroes, we just united the galaxy and the only way we can stop the bad guys is to beg their boss.

[Iakus]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Shepard wasn't half-synthetic. She was partly synthetic. Dick Cheney is partly synthetic.

Anyone who has an articicial hip, a pin in their knee, or heck, fillings in their teeth, is partly synthetic.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

silverexile17s wrote...

No, that's pretty damn debatible, "lol," since I've had to repeatedly re-state points that you either ignored or discounted with invalid points. We should have been "almost there" awhile ago, but we aren't, therefore we likely won't be anytime soon.

No, it's not debatable.  It's simple grammar.  I never said "almost there" until the post you quoted.  What you think should have been "almost there" is irrelevant to when I said "almost there."  See what I mean?

Your view of being 'almost there' is irrelevant to my view of being 'almost there.'  They're mutually exclusive, which is why it's not debatable.

//cough

He doesn't have a choice in resisting the solutions, because finding a new one is paramount. However, Shepard's presence is a necessity for Synthesis -- an option the Catalyst only just now realizes is possible thanks to Shepard's half-synthetic DNA. Shepard is many factors -- Shepard led the galaxt to victory over the solution, so right there Shepard won the right to decide which option is better over the Catalyst. Shepard is also one of the few strong-willed enough to supplant him as the new Catalyst, and the only one with the hybrid DNA needed for Synthesis. Anyone else, either one or two of the options would be impossible. And even if there were others, they aren't Shepard -- AKA, the one that united the galaxy and beat the odds.
This is basically a unique scenerio -- the Catalyst must comply with one of the options to complete a new Solution, and the one person that survived to give that input is the one person that can make all three choices possible.

As to why it's refrenced, some theroize that "The Catalyst" is actually another cycle's name for the Citadel station. We know from Vendetta that the Citadel wasn't always called "the Citadel," and even goes as far as implying that the Protheans themselves had a different name for it (He says "in your cycle, it is refered to as the Citadel," implying that the Protheans didn't call it such). The idea is that the Catalyst adopted the name for itself.
Another version of this theroy is that some cycles found refrence to the name "Catalyst," and mistakenly assumed that this was the name/title of the Citadel itself, and not of an A.I. inside it.
Either way, the general belief is that when the cycles used the term "Catalyst," they always refrenced the station itself, and had no prior knowledge of an A.I. inside it.

Shepard (and seemingly everyone else) thought the Citadel was called the Catalyst.  However, the Catalyst clarifies that the Citadel is merely a part of the Catalyst (not to mention that the Catalyst literally calls itself 'The Catalyst').  For the other races to get The Catalyst's name exactly right suggests foreknowledge more than error.  Remember, the races of this cycle had no idea what they were doing with regards to the Crucible... whereas the older one(s) had the Catalyst's exact name.

Which finally brings us full circle:

In order to stop the Reapers once and for all, we needed the 'permission' of the Catalyst (Reaper leader) in order to do it.  Given the fact that this Reaper leader is constantly on the lookout for new solutions (and is code-compelled to find one), we need the Reaper leader to suffer a sort of mid life crises and be willing to accept total destruction if Shepard (who was lead by Admiral Hackett and Anderson) chose to do so.

The Catalyst must give up practically everything it believes and 'let' Shepard do whatever he wants in order for the Reapers to have any chance of tasting defeat during this cycle. BUT, only with the Crucible, because the Catalyst has no patience for any other idea Shepard may have (such as wanting to defeat the Reapers conventionally, the Catalyst doesn't want Shepard to destroy the Reapers that way... it's gotta be with the Crucible or not at all).


Thank you for agreeing with me.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 29 août 2013 - 09:56 .

[TheProtheans]

I always assumed the Reapers indoctrinated Shepard anyway.

[Renmiri1]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

xsdob wrote...

What makes you think he's okay with either destroy or control? He basically says he hates them but that it's what the options do.

He's okay with it because he presents the options to Shepard.  If those options weren't presented by the Reaper leader, Shepard would still be sleeping on the lower floor.  Additionally, if you shoot at the Catalyst, he says "Screw it, you all die" (in so many words, lol)... so it's not some kind of code-based obligation in his programming... it's just his whim.

ME3 Plot hole #2,000,000,001

2 billion plot holes and counting! 

Modifié par Renmiri1, 30 août 2013 - 09:41 .

[Mcfly616]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

xsdob wrote...

What makes you think he's okay with either destroy or control? He basically says he hates them but that it's what the options do.

He's okay with it because he presents the options to Shepard.  If those options weren't presented by the Reaper leader, Shepard would still be sleeping on the lower floor.  Additionally, if you shoot at the Catalyst, he says "Screw it, you all die" (in so many words, lol)... so it's not some kind of code-based obligation in his programming... it's just his whim.

It was created for a purpose. To find a solution. Whether it was okay with the choices is irrelevant. It may not like relinquishing Control or being Destroyed by Shepard, but It acknowledges that Shepard (and the Crucible) have proven its method to be obsolete. If Shepard refuses to choose a better solution, then the Catalyst has no other choice but to continue on with the cycles until it finds the solution to its problem. And if your Shepard goes that route, than its essentially him that says "Screw it".

Renmiri1 wrote...

ME3 Plot hole #2,000,000,001

2 billion plot holes and counting! 

what plot holes? Please list a few....

Modifié par Mcfly616, 30 août 2013 - 12:31 .

[Renmiri1]

Feh, why bother ? You will probably say you found it flawless and tell me to watch chapter 4 of "All ME3 mysteries resolved" like this other Ender here.. Before it was even published http://social.biowar...7501/3#17237693

Denial .. is not a river in Egypt

Modifié par Renmiri1, 31 août 2013 - 05:11 .

[David7204]

The entire point of the exchange is the Catalyst handing the choice over to Shepard because he acknowledges Shepard knows or understands something he doesn't. That includes Destroy.

It is poorly explained, but it's not a plot hole.

[Mcfly616]

Renmiri1 wrote...

Denial .. is not a river in Egypt

one could say the same to those that think the Catalyst is lying and/or doesn't make sense.


I never said anything was "flawless". Nothing is. So, have fun with your assumptions of what I may or may not say.

Modifié par Mcfly616, 31 août 2013 - 05:25 .

[Renmiri1]

Mcfly616 wrote...

Renmiri1 wrote...

Denial .. is not a river in Egypt

one could say the same to those that think the Catalyst is lying and/or doesn't make sense.


I never said anything was "flawless". Nothing is. So, have fun with your assumptions of what I may or may not say.

You ask me to list 1 single plot hole on ME3.  ONE. Which implies you saw ZERO. If that is not flawless then by all means list the flaws you did see. I just won't waste my time with someone that didn't see a single plot hole.. Why should I ?

For fun maybe ? So let's try. The Catalyst itself makes sense. Of course. I remember that time on ME1 when we saw him and Harbinger.. Oh wait he wasn't on ME1. Right.. But still that time on ME2 at the Citadel when we found the plans for the crucible Oh wait..

Ah I got it!!! The from Ashes DLC map we found of the sececret dig site on Mars.. No not there.. But surely TIM was in constant contact with him and we saw that when we got to Cerberus HQ! No there either ?

Wait.. don't telll me.. I got it! Liara, the Shadow Broker, the person who found the Mars plans and biggest authority on old civilizations efforts to combat the reapper.. She was the one that told us the Catalyst was alive inside the Citadel while we looked for it all over the Universe.. 

No ? Not her ?

Why of course, how could I forget ??

Casey Hudson pulled it out of his arse. Of course, it all makes sense now. No plot hole there.

Modifié par Renmiri1, 31 août 2013 - 05:40 .

[dreamgazer]

There are plot holes created by the Catalyst (why didn't it do something during the finale in ME1), but introducing the controller of the antagonists later in the narrative isn't inherently one of them.

Modifié par dreamgazer, 31 août 2013 - 06:23 .

[Renmiri1]

dreamgazer wrote...

There are plot holes created by the Catalyst (why didn't it do something during the finale in ME1), but introducing the controller of the antagonists later in the narrative isn't inherently one of them.

Or during ME2 or during 99% of ME3

last 10 minutes pull a rabbit glowy starbrat out of your arse is not writing, is "finish this **** up because we have to ship the game"

[voteDC]

It has always bugged me that if people didn't know the Catalyst/God-Child/Hologram Kid existed, then how the hell did they design the Crucible to make use of it?

Using the Citadel makes sense, since it controls the relay network, but hologram kid? How the hell did they put the 'triggers' for the Crucible in a chamber that they didn't know was there?

Regarding using the Citadel. It makes sense because it controls the relays but how the hell did they intend to get the Crucible to the Citadel?

The cycle in the Mass Effect games is the only one where the mass relays still worked, since the Reapers had shut them down previously, meaning it would have to be flown there at FTL speeds.

So it would take a very long time to get there, require regular stops to discharge the drive cores and a huge chunk of luck to encounter no Reaper or indoctrinated forces. Then the fight through whatever Reapers were at the Citadel.

It would seem to be to be an utter waste of time in previous cycles, with 'hide and freeze ourselves until later' being the much more sensible choice.

Modifié par voteDC, 31 août 2013 - 08:46 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Mcfly616 wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

xsdob wrote...

What makes you think he's okay with either destroy or control? He basically says he hates them but that it's what the options do.

He's okay with it because he presents the options to Shepard.  If those options weren't presented by the Reaper leader, Shepard would still be sleeping on the lower floor.  Additionally, if you shoot at the Catalyst, he says "Screw it, you all die" (in so many words, lol)... so it's not some kind of code-based obligation in his programming... it's just his whim.

It was created for a purpose. To find a solution. Whether it was okay with the choices is irrelevant. It may not like relinquishing Control or being Destroyed by Shepard, but It acknowledges that Shepard (and the Crucible) have proven its method to be obsolete. If Shepard refuses to choose a better solution, then the Catalyst has no other choice but to continue on with the cycles until it finds the solution to its problem. And if your Shepard goes that route, than its essentially him that says "Screw it".

Problem here is that Shepard's been fighting to "Destroy" the Reapers the entire time.

Saying "screw it" to the Crucible is only "screw it" to the Crucible, lol.  Shooting at the Catalyst can obviously be taken to mean Shepard wants the Catalyst (and the Reapers) dead.  It's still in the Catalyst's hands at this point... but that's not good enough for the Reaper King.

On that track, there definitely is a plot hole there.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 31 août 2013 - 08:54 .

[Mcfly616]

Renmiri1 wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

Renmiri1 wrote...

Denial .. is not a river in Egypt

one could say the same to those that think the Catalyst is lying and/or doesn't make sense.


I never said anything was "flawless". Nothing is. So, have fun with your assumptions of what I may or may not say.

You ask me to list 1 single plot hole on ME3.  ONE. Which implies you saw ZERO. If that is not flawless then by all means list the flaws you did see. I just won't waste my time with someone that didn't see a single plot hole.. Why should I ?

For fun maybe ? So let's try. The Catalyst itself makes sense. Of course. I remember that time on ME1 when we saw him and Harbinger.. Oh wait he wasn't on ME1. Right.. But still that time on ME2 at the Citadel when we found the plans for the crucible Oh wait..

Ah I got it!!! The from Ashes DLC map we found of the sececret dig site on Mars.. No not there.. But surely TIM was in constant contact with him and we saw that when we got to Cerberus HQ! No there either ?

Wait.. don't telll me.. I got it! Liara, the Shadow Broker, the person who found the Mars plans and biggest authority on old civilizations efforts to combat the reapper.. She was the one that told us the Catalyst was alive inside the Citadel while we looked for it all over the Universe.. 

No ? Not her ?

Why of course, how could I forget ??

Casey Hudson pulled it out of his arse. Of course, it all makes sense now. No plot hole there.

actually....I said nothing of the sort. I specifically said "what plot holes? Please list a few". So, maybe you can't read or your eyes are messing with you. And a game without plot holes, doesn't make it a flawless game. There is no such thing.

And you didn't even list one. Congratulations. Maybe learn what a "plot hole" is, then come back and try again.

Modifié par Mcfly616, 31 août 2013 - 09:22 .

[Mcfly616]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

xsdob wrote...

What makes you think he's okay with either destroy or control? He basically says he hates them but that it's what the options do.

He's okay with it because he presents the options to Shepard.  If those options weren't presented by the Reaper leader, Shepard would still be sleeping on the lower floor.  Additionally, if you shoot at the Catalyst, he says "Screw it, you all die" (in so many words, lol)... so it's not some kind of code-based obligation in his programming... it's just his whim.

It was created for a purpose. To find a solution. Whether it was okay with the choices is irrelevant. It may not like relinquishing Control or being Destroyed by Shepard, but It acknowledges that Shepard (and the Crucible) have proven its method to be obsolete. If Shepard refuses to choose a better solution, then the Catalyst has no other choice but to continue on with the cycles until it finds the solution to its problem. And if your Shepard goes that route, than its essentially him that says "Screw it".

Problem here is that Shepard's been fighting to "Destroy" the Reapers the entire time.

Saying "screw it" to the Crucible is only "screw it" to the Crucible, lol.  Shooting at the Catalyst can obviously be taken to mean Shepard wants the Catalyst (and the Reapers) dead.  It's still in the Catalyst's hands at this point... but that's not good enough for the Reaper King.

On that track, there definitely is a plot hole there.

he's been fighting to "Stop" the Reapers the entire time. And you can't Destroy the Reapers (let alone, stop them) without the Crucible. You know this. Shepard knows this. So, yeah if you refuse to use the Crucible, you are saying "screw it". Not a plot hole.

[Mcfly616]

dreamgazer wrote...

There are plot holes created by the Catalyst (why didn't it do something during the finale in ME1), but introducing the controller of the antagonists later in the narrative isn't inherently one of them.

what could it have done in ME1? It's not physically capable of anything. It couldn't open the Citadel Relay because of the Prothean sabotage. Hence why it needed Sovereign (and by extension: Saren) to remedy the issue. We all know how that turned out.


The Catalyst is nothing without its thralls. Nothing, except for an ominous consciousness.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Mcfly616 wrote...

he's been fighting to "Stop" the Reapers the entire time. And you can't Destroy the Reapers (let alone, stop them) without the Crucible. You know this. Shepard knows this. So, yeah if you refuse to use the Crucible, you are saying "screw it". Not a plot hole.

To "rid the galaxy of the Reaper threat."  If the Catalyst/Reapers are okay with their own destruction, why does it have to come via the Crucible?  Reapers have been destroyed left and right throughout the Mass Effect trilogy, they just weren't "all" destroyed because the Reapers fight back well and have enormous numbers.

If Shepard chose to "Destroy" the Reapers with Thanix canons etc. from their ships instead of using the Crucible, how is it any different from using the Crucible's "Destroy" option (to the Catalyst)?  The Catalyst controls the Reapers... if he's handing the galaxy's fate over to Shepard, then what Shepard chooses to do with the Crucible should be irrelevant.

Rejecting the Crucible doesn't mean Shepard's rejecting the notion of beating/destroying the Reapers... why would Shepard not want to end this conflict?  He's always trying to stop the Reapers (even told the Catalyst that he "needs" to do it).

Hence the plot hole.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 01 septembre 2013 - 08:05 .

[Renmiri1]

Mcfly616 wrote...

And you didn't even list one. Congratulations. Maybe learn what a "plot hole" is, then come back and try again.

The day you learn to read I might... 

I knew it was a waste of my time.. You are here denying post after post for multiple people.. One wonders why you bother. 

Modifié par Renmiri1, 01 septembre 2013 - 08:28 .

[Mcfly616]

Renmiri1 wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

And you didn't even list one. Congratulations. Maybe learn what a "plot hole" is, then come back and try again.

The day you learn to read I might... 

I knew it was a waste of my time.. You are here denying post after post for multiple people.. One wonders why you bother. 

lol I read just fine. All you did was say that the Catalyst wasn't in ME1. And that Hudson pulled it out of nowhere. That's not a plot hole. Don't be mad because you're wrong. It's okay.

Remember, all I did was ask you to "list a few" plot holes. And you come back and say that I said it was "flawless". Maybe you should register for English 101 this fall semester. Might do you some good.

Modifié par Mcfly616, 01 septembre 2013 - 09:24 .

[Mcfly616]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

he's been fighting to "Stop" the Reapers the entire time. And you can't Destroy the Reapers (let alone, stop them) without the Crucible. You know this. Shepard knows this. So, yeah if you refuse to use the Crucible, you are saying "screw it". Not a plot hole.

To "rid the galaxy of the Reaper threat."  If the Catalyst/Reapers are okay with their own destruction, why does it have to come via the Crucible?  Reapers have been destroyed left and right throughout the Mass Effect trilogy, they just weren't "all" destroyed because the Reapers fight back well and have enormous numbers.

If Shepard chose to "Destroy" the Reapers with Thanix canons etc. from their ships instead of using the Crucible, how is it any different from using the Crucible's "Destroy" option (to the Catalyst)?  The Catalyst controls the Reapers... if he's handing the galaxy's fate over to Shepard, then what Shepard chooses to do with the Crucible should be irrelevant.

Rejecting the Crucible doesn't mean Shepard's rejecting the notion of beating/destroying the Reapers... why would Shepard not want to end this conflict?  He's always trying to stop the Reapers (even told the Catalyst that he "needs" to do it).

Hence the plot hole.

guess you missed that part when Shepard says that he'll find another way to destroy the Reapers, and the Catalyst literally tells him its not possible. The united forces of the galaxy are overwhelmingly outnumbered and all but about to be wiped out at that point. Thanix canons alone would not have beat the Reapers.


Basically you're saying its a plot hole because the Catalyst should just give up and allow Shepard to Destroy it and the Reapers by just sitting still and waiting to be executed? Hardly. The Catalyst still has an obligation to find the best solution for the galaxy. If Shepard doesn't want to choose one, the Catalyst has no choice but to continue the harvest until it finds another way.

Modifié par Mcfly616, 01 septembre 2013 - 09:26 .