540 réponses à ce sujet

[Cainhurst Crow]

If you want to destroy them, that's fine. There are multiple options avaliable for multiple people.

I just don't feel that the common practices here, such as attempting to make others feel bad about the endings they picked by assigning head canon consequences to them, is a very mature or respectful thing to do.

It reeks of "stop liking what I don't like" syndrome.

[Erez Kristal]

I find it amusing that those who enjoyed me3 most are those who take what writers told them as granted.
without examining the flaws. which actually make sense in a bad movie.
But in a game that tries to take itself seriously its rather strange

There are two options to look at the endings(and me3 plot in general)
A) The game was Really badly written, The ending was terribily written. The catalyst is a pal, shepard made his way to the chamber on his own. the catalyst offers those three options because it really wants what best for organics.
The game was badly written, The ending was rather badly written. The catalyst is a wicked manipulative entity. it lured shepard into the beam and up into the chamber and now it is playing shepard like an exprienced puppeteer.

your playthrough, your choice.

Modifié par erezike, 27 juillet 2013 - 07:43 .

[Cainhurst Crow]

How very droll of a mentality. Only your two paths are accurate than, and every other interpretation or outlook incorrect?

And it's my choice now? I'm sorry, I thought it was your choice, since those are your options that you have forced into peoples face for how they should interpret their game.

I trust in the world of empirical evidence before I do the world of speculation, and given the way the extended cut epilouges are played out, it can be easily determined that every option leads to the outcome promised. Perhaps, on a level, the catalyst is trying to mainpulate you. But if so, than the catalyst is manipulating you without using lies or misinformation, a very hard tactic to pull, but one that an expert puppetmaster and manipulator could pull off.

In this thread it was suggested that the crucible adds a new shackle to the catalyst and makes it need to obey whatever option shepard picks. I rather like it as the reality of my own playthrough, since it offers a nice middle ground and a logical explination for why the catalyst might do what you tell it to do, but still be against it itself. That is my game anyway, if you want to believe you've broken this strange game the catalyst is playing and a meta-physical test of intelligance, than you can go ahead and do so. It's your game, and I won't impose my head canon onto your game or call you wrong for doing so, as long as you don't try the same with me.

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 27 juillet 2013 - 07:00 .

[Erez Kristal]

I didnt see anyone proposing other paths.
You went with A i went with B. both are fair game.

I agree completely, with everything else you wrote darth.

[Erez Kristal]

RiouHotaru wrote...

, everytime someone tries to make the Catalyst look villainous, the question of "Then why did he bring you up to the platform in the first place?"  Always fails to get answered.  I

Why was the beam open? why didnt shepard die from the captial ship ray, why did the captial ship guarding the beam leave? where are the rest of the reaper ressistance forces? Why is he still killing your allies as he presents you the choices, why doesnt he just sends his reapers away?
he brings you up the platform in the first place in order to
1) choose synthesis.
2) destroy the crucible
3) die.
 
The citadel is already open and if the catalyst wouldnt have acted quicker someone else who actually understood something about the crucible might have showed up and evaced shepard. and the catalyst was interested in shepard all along.

Modifié par erezike, 27 juillet 2013 - 08:23 .

[Erez Kristal]

StreetMagic wrote...

erezike wrote...

I find it amusing that those who enjoyed me3 most are those who take what writers told them as granted.
without examining the flaws. which actually make sense in a bad movie.
But in a game that tries to take itself seriously its rather strange

There are two options to look at the endings(and me3 plot in general)
A) The game was Really badly written, The ending was terribily written. The catalyst is a pal, shepard made his way to the chamber on his own. the catalyst offers those three options because it really wants what best for organics.
The game was badly written, The ending was rather badly written. The catalyst is a wicked manipulative entity. it lured shepard into the beam and up into the chamber and now it is playing shepard like an exprienced puppeteer.

your playthrough, your choice.

I can only hope for a 3rd option.

The Catalyst took a gamble on letting Shepard up the elevator (much like Illusive Man took a gamble with the Lazarus Project and letting Shepard into his life). The Catalyst was urging Synthesis, but in my case, Shepard chose Destroy instead.

/shrug Maybe we'll get more answers in the future.

Sounds like A to me 

Modifié par erezike, 27 juillet 2013 - 07:43 .

[Erez Kristal]

So C would be. The game is awfully written, the reapers wanted to destroyed galactic life, but are beyond incompetent there for shepard made it to the chamber and could choose to kill the reapers with off switch offered by the reapers.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

erezike wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

, everytime someone tries to make the Catalyst look villainous, the question of "Then why did he bring you up to the platform in the first place?"  Always fails to get answered.  I

a) Why was the beam open? why didnt shepard die from the captial ship ray, c) why did the captial ship guarding the beam leave? d) where are the rest of the reaper ressistance forces? e) Why is he still killing your allies as he presents you the choices, f) why doesnt he just send his reapers away?
he brings you up the platform in the first place in order for 
1) choose synthesis.
2) destroy the crucible
3) die.
 
The citadel is already open and if the catalyst wouldnt have acted quicker someone else who actually understood something about the crucible might have showed up and evaced shepard. and the catalyst was interested in shepard all along.

Wait for a fan fiction resolution of question a). I've got that coming.

Because it was just a visual effect. The white out was done later. Casey called "cut" and there was a wardrobe change. The dwarves from "Time Bandits" ran out, stole Shepard's armor, beat the crap out of him/her, then put that burned crap armor on, and stabbed her in the shoulder.

c) Starbrat said "Leave, they will be bringing in the Crucible soon. I have clairvoyance."

d) Major Coates told them to retreat in case that big bad reaper returned.

e) Starbrat likes killing your allies. He's waited 50,000 years to do this. He likes making monsters out of them. Notice he is not dark and somber that you are there. Inside he is stifling his laughs. He is laughing like a maniac.

f) See e)

See, synthesis is pretty close to what the reapers already are which is why it wants you to choose it. So by doing so you join the reapers and since Starbrat is still around IT now controls you. And this destroys the crucible. And you die.

The end. And Starbrat has fun!

[silverexile17s]

AlanC9 wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

And it's already confirmed that the next game will likely be a prequal, sidequal, or a mix of the two,

You're not still pushing that crazy misreading of the Priestly quote, are you?

http://www.trustedre...rs-release-date

As you can see here, no, I am not.

They teesed that the next game might revolve around Garrus, Aria, the Illusive Man, or Grunt as the main character.
In fact, Mac Walters says that his personal choice for the main character would be a lesser-known character like..... Oh, Christ.... Kai Leng.
A game all about Kai Leng? Well, if ME wasn't dead from the ending fiasco, it sure as hell is now.

Read this site for yourself.

Modifié par silverexile17s, 27 juillet 2013 - 09:57 .

[silverexile17s]

AlanC9 wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...


There's nothing to suggest that Shepard "ever" takes over for the Reapers as the new Catalyst.  The kid Catalyst is just acting like Shepard as far as I'm concerned.  The only thing we see the real Shepard do is die.

So the kid's stopping the war and repairing the relays because reasons, eh?

This is starting to sound even worse than IT.

It's a copy of Shepard's morals. Not Shepard himself/herself. Shepard is dead. There is a computer that has an exact copy of Shepard's morals. Like a "Shepard V.I. MK 3000."

Modifié par silverexile17s, 27 juillet 2013 - 10:00 .

[silverexile17s]

erezike wrote...

I find it amusing that those who enjoyed me3 most are those who take what writers told them as granted.
without examining the flaws. which actually make sense in a bad movie.
But in a game that tries to take itself seriously its rather strange

There are two options to look at the endings(and me3 plot in general)
A) The game was Really badly written, The ending was terribily written. The catalyst is a pal, shepard made his way to the chamber on his own. the catalyst offers those three options because it really wants what best for organics.
The game was badly written, The ending was rather badly written. The catalyst is a wicked manipulative entity. it lured shepard into the beam and up into the chamber and now it is playing shepard like an exprienced puppeteer.

your playthrough, your choice.

Says the person trying to force his own set cannon down everyone's throats? Just Like you accuse BioWare of doing?
Every time you bring up the "flaws," you fail to provide any valid proof of your claims.

The Catalyst simply doesn't care about death. He just wants the job done, and if that means his death or replacement, so be it - he doesn't care. Shepard beat his solution, so he's submitting to Shepard's choice.

[Auintus]

silverexile17s wrote...

The Catalyst simply doesn't care about death. He just wants the job done, and if that means his death or replacement, so be it - he doesn't care. Shepard beat his solution, so he's submitting to Shepard's choice.

I would like to disagree with one minor issue here.
Shepard never beat the solution. He proved that it didn't work...somehow. The Crucible must mean more to the Catalyst than it does to me, but the Reapers are perfectly capable of finishing the harvest and destroying the Crucible. The Catalyst indicated that Shepard had changed something in the algorithms and convinced it to accept Shepard's choice of a new solution, but he never actually beat the current one.

[AlexMBrennan]

The Catalyst simply doesn't care about death. He just wants the job done, and if that means his death or replacement, so be it - he doesn't care. Shepard beat his solution, so he's submitting to Shepard's choice.

But that contradicts destroy - Catalyst outright says that "peace will not last" i.e. that Shepard choosing destroy is not a solution... so why let him do it?

[silverexile17s]

erezike wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

, everytime someone tries to make the Catalyst look villainous, the question of "Then why did he bring you up to the platform in the first place?"  Always fails to get answered.  I

Why was the beam open? why didnt shepard die from the captial ship ray, why did the captial ship guarding the beam leave? where are the rest of the reaper ressistance forces? Why is he still killing your allies as he presents you the choices, why doesnt he just sends his reapers away?
he brings you up the platform in the first place in order to
1) choose synthesis.
2) destroy the crucible
3) die.
 
The citadel is already open and if the catalyst wouldnt have acted quicker someone else who actually understood something about the crucible might have showed up and evaced shepard. and the catalyst was interested in shepard all along.

All flawed -- and you keep ignoring the answers given to you. In order:
- Because it's a set fixture that can't be shut down once opened. Why else do you think they had to send Harbinger there instead of shutting it down? Because it's likely that it can't be turned off once powered up. It's like an anchor tying the Citadel over London - they break it so easily, it will be a pain to re-position and so-forth. So it probably doesn't have any easy override like you assume it does.
- Luck. Plain and simple luck. One can ask why Garrus survived his missle to the face on Omega.  Same answer - luck. No great mystery there.
- That ship was Harbinger. You can pretend like no one knew, but that Ship was Harbinger, because he's the ONLY Reaper that looks like that -- as stated by the Codex. Anderson even calls him by name. As to why he left -- he thought everyone was dead. Anyone still alive was likely dying, or crippled beyond recovery. Life-signs would be very faint - he figured Shepard would not survive those injuries, even if the Commander did survive the beam blast. Even a single Marauder has the power to kill Shepard now.
- Fighting in London? Streatched thin by the other forces around the city? Cleared out by Shepard and company? Take your pick. The majority of the Reaper forces guarding the Conduit were wiped out -- it took time for them to return.
- He IS holding the Reapers back. EDI makes note of the fact that the Reapers have been holding back the entire time. This IS them holding back. Let that sink in, why don't you?
Also, you assume that just because he "directs" the Reapers means he has complete control over them. They are still individual beings. Each Reaper may take orders, but they also have a freedom of choice in how they carry those out. Their directives are to harvest. The Catalyst can't change that preset directive. They will keep going until reprogramed. The Catalyst CAN'T order them to stop because that would be in violation of his pre-programed directives. Loophole. 
He literally CAN'T stop them because they are being compelled by their base programming. It's compulsive. He can reign them in, but can't outright order them to stop without violating his own programming. It's complicated, and indication that you never bothered to look at the Catalyst in-depth.

The Catalyst may have had an "intrest" in Shepard before, but it was never "worth" acting on until Shepard actually docked the Crucible to the Citadel.

Modifié par silverexile17s, 28 juillet 2013 - 01:52 .

[silverexile17s]

Auintus wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

The Catalyst simply doesn't care about death. He just wants the job done, and if that means his death or replacement, so be it - he doesn't care. Shepard beat his solution, so he's submitting to Shepard's choice.

I would like to disagree with one minor issue here.
Shepard never beat the solution. He proved that it didn't work...somehow. The Crucible must mean more to the Catalyst than it does to me, but the Reapers are perfectly capable of finishing the harvest and destroying the Crucible. The Catalyst indicated that Shepard had changed something in the algorithms and convinced it to accept Shepard's choice of a new solution, but he never actually beat the current one.

The fact that the united forces overcame the Reapers guarding the Citadel and docked the Crucible is what proved the soultion didn't work. The moment Shepard did that, he beat the Solution. It proved that the Catalyst's methods were becoming gradually more ineffective. Last cycle the Protheans sabotaged the Citadel. This cycle, the humans killed their "Vanguard," retained control of the Citadel and Relays, and fought them on a more controled and orginized front then before. And then, docked the Crucible - which he believed the plans for were destroyed. This is proof to the Catalyst that his solution is beciming more and more ineffective. It's flawed. His programming compels him to fix this problem, so he turns to the "new variable" - Shepard. Shepard beat the Solution, so he's letting Shepard decide how to fix it.
Should he take it over himself (Control)? Should he jump it forward to the final stage (Synthesis)? Should he end it now and let fate decide (Destroy)? By altering the variables and providing new "solutions," it "changed" the Catalyst's perspective. It showed him new ways to go and new options. Deciding which one was best .... he left to the one that made it possible to begin with.

[silverexile17s]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

The Catalyst simply doesn't care about death. He just wants the job done, and if that means his death or replacement, so be it - he doesn't care. Shepard beat his solution, so he's submitting to Shepard's choice.

But that contradicts destroy - Catalyst outright says that "peace will not last" i.e. that Shepard choosing destroy is not a solution... so why let him do it?

He's submitting to the one that made the Choice possible in the first place. There are three possiblities. Which he prefers and which is best, he is no longer sure of, because there is now a veriable he didn't account for and lacks the capability to utilize - the emotional responce variable. The "gut feeling." "Going with your heart." These are things he can't comprehend. Shepard can, and used these things to overcome his logic and his solution. Therefore, he's letting Shepard - the variable that trumped his predictions - have the final say. And will submit to whatever he chooes.

[Auintus]

silverexile17s wrote...
The fact that the united forces overcame the Reapers guarding the Citadel and docked the Crucible is what proved the soultion didn't work. The moment Shepard did that, he beat the Solution. It proved that the Catalyst's methods were becoming gradually more ineffective. Last cycle the Protheans sabotaged the Citadel. This cycle, the humans killed their "Vanguard," retained control of the Citadel and Relays, and fought them on a more controled and orginized front then before. And then, docked the Crucible - which he believed the plans for were destroyed. This is proof to the Catalyst that his solution is becoming more and more ineffective. It's flawed. His programming compels him to fix this problem, so he turns to the "new variable" - Shepard. Shepard beat the Solution, so he's letting Shepard decide how to fix it.
Should he take it over himself (Control)? Should he jump it forward to the final stage (Synthesis)? Should he end it now and let fate decide (Destroy)? By altering the variables and providing new "solutions," it "changed" the Catalyst's perspective. It showed him new ways to go and new options. Deciding which one was best .... he left to the one that made it possible to begin with.

The Crucible only docked in a suicide charge with everything the galaxy had to throw at it. I wouldn't call that a decisive victory. And with the application of a little more force, the current solution would still have worked, whough you are right that it was probably only a matter of time, what with everything the Protheans and the current cycle managed to accomplish. Your theory makes sense, though.

[silverexile17s]

Auintus wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...
The fact that the united forces overcame the Reapers guarding the Citadel and docked the Crucible is what proved the soultion didn't work. The moment Shepard did that, he beat the Solution. It proved that the Catalyst's methods were becoming gradually more ineffective. Last cycle the Protheans sabotaged the Citadel. This cycle, the humans killed their "Vanguard," retained control of the Citadel and Relays, and fought them on a more controled and orginized front then before. And then, docked the Crucible - which he believed the plans for were destroyed. This is proof to the Catalyst that his solution is becoming more and more ineffective. It's flawed. His programming compels him to fix this problem, so he turns to the "new variable" - Shepard. Shepard beat the Solution, so he's letting Shepard decide how to fix it.
Should he take it over himself (Control)? Should he jump it forward to the final stage (Synthesis)? Should he end it now and let fate decide (Destroy)? By altering the variables and providing new "solutions," it "changed" the Catalyst's perspective. It showed him new ways to go and new options. Deciding which one was best .... he left to the one that made it possible to begin with.

The Crucible only docked in a suicide charge with everything the galaxy had to throw at it. I wouldn't call that a decisive victory. And with the application of a little more force, the current solution would still have worked, whough you are right that it was probably only a matter of time, what with everything the Protheans and the current cycle managed to accomplish. Your theory makes sense, though.

And no other race ever made it that far. According to the Catalyst, no other race - not one other cycle - ever rallied and united like this one did. None of them were able to retain the relay network and mount a cooridnated defense like this. None were able to rally together their entire galaxy for said suicide charge. That's a decisive victory to the Catalyst. They bested his calculations. They showed that there was a flaw in his Solution -- his failure to account for the emotional responce. The victory he saw wasn't about martial streignth. It was about how thier belief - something he never understood - bested his predictions.
And no other race got this far. Even if they win, they still lose because they have to live with the fact that their "solution" is flawed. The Reapers fanatically believe this is the only way for life to survive - what do you think is going to happen now that they know that their purpose is gradually weakening over time? That eventually, someone will triumph over them completely, because they have been getting closer to failing as time goes on?
Now that the Catalyst knows his solution isn't perfect, he has no desire to protect it anymore. But he can't self-modify without violating his own programing. Thus, outside input is needed - Shepard. And since Shepard spearheaded the movement that proved his solution was flawed, it's only natural that the new variable choose which result the cycles should end with. He doens't want to force Shepard down a spicific path - because that would be biased and "ruin the end result."  The new perspecives he sees can't be done without Shepard to make them happen. Shepard has the power to determine how the Reapers "work" culminates. Thus, he has "Won" over the Catalyst.

[AlanC9]

silverexile17s wrote...

http://www.trustedre...rs-release-date

As you can see here, no, I am not.

They teesed that the next game might revolve around Garrus, Aria, the Illusive Man, or Grunt as the main character.
In fact, Mac Walters says that his personal choice for the main character would be a lesser-known character like..... Oh, Christ.... Kai Leng.
A game all about Kai Leng? Well, if ME wasn't dead from the ending fiasco, it sure as hell is now.

Read this site for yourself.

Fair enough. But link tags are your friend.


Note that that page doesn't include some quotes that undermine your thesis, like Yanick Roy's WW2 analogy.

Modifié par AlanC9, 27 juillet 2013 - 11:56 .

[silverexile17s]

AlanC9 wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

http://www.trustedre...rs-release-date

As you can see here, no, I am not.

They teesed that the next game might revolve around Garrus, Aria, the Illusive Man, or Grunt as the main character.
In fact, Mac Walters says that his personal choice for the main character would be a lesser-known character like..... Oh, Christ.... Kai Leng.
A game all about Kai Leng? Well, if ME wasn't dead from the ending fiasco, it sure as hell is now.

Read this site for yourself.

Fair enough. But link tags are your friend.


Note that that page doesn't include some quotes that undermine your thesis, like Yanick Roy's WW2 analogy.

This is still the most recant infromation. And I figure it's best to stick to what the BioWare devs claim their course is, rather then an analogy from a game that's not even connected to ME.

[noobcannon]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

... you need the 'permission' of the Reaper leader to do it?


Who's idea (in the ME universe) was that? lol.

"Okay the last thing we need... is the leader of the Reapers to be okay with this so we can fire off that Crucible, because we have no idea how to work this thing."


Doesn't that inadvertently suggest that the Crucible itself is a Reaper design (possibly pushed through by indoctrinated civilizations?)


Let the speculations continue

i feel this way also

[ShepnTali]

I do not want to play a stock character from past ME games. Playing as Garrus in some ME2 dlc may have been cool at the time, but that ship has sailed.