347 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Ieldra2 wrote...
The choices the Catalyst explains to me, on their own, are all interesting enough to consider even if you don't believe in the scenario. Or rather, they would be if they came from a neutral force, but as it is, if you really roleplay, they're all suspect because of who presents them. Enough has been said of this in countless posts, so let's just say that while the scenario and the final choice options pose no logical contradictions, the narrative dissonance is so staggering that you question if you're in the same story any more, and even more importantly, this creates the feeling that Shepard goes to his doom for nothing, that it ultimately wasn't worth it. I believe this is the main reason the ending still comes across as depressing to many players.

I think the way Bio ended up there is that they were deliberately trying to have it feel like Shepard's outside of the story. Up until that point Shepard's just one more soldier in an all-but-endless sucession, and this is just another episode of a Reaper war that's been refought 20,000 times or so. When he goes up to that platform he's outside of that story, outside the cycles, outside of history itself. They hit that mark -- what they didn't hit was where the player lands when exiting that story. 

Of course you, as the player, are aware at this point that all those endings are meant to be good endings. You know that you're supposed to trust the Catalyst because otherwise you'd have no information at all about how to proceed. You know that because you know how stories work, and because you believe this story won't betray you in that, but the way the information is given to you is so much more hindrance than help that this only becomes clear in the meta-perspective. In the case of Synthesis, I'm also confronted with an extra dose of the abovementioned mysticism, with "Shepard's essence" powering this solution and with an implementation that defies all rationalization in terms of in-world logic.

You don't actually have to go meta; there's always the game-theory approach. Nobody's ever been able to run the numbers for the Catalyst lying and have them make any sense. (Unless Destroy isn't real in the first place and Shepard's already lost, though in that case what Shepard does doesn't matter so the case is not worth considering.) But that's not all that useful for most of us. Game theory's good for a lot of things, but providing emotional/artistic satisfaction isn't one of them

As for the larger points, I think you might be underestimating how much mysticism was always inherent in ME. It's fundamentally not all that different a universe from Star Wars, IMO. Put another way, I got my disappointment out of the way during ME1, so I was less bothered by those elements coming to the fore in ME3.

[JasonShepard]

AlanC9 wrote...

Nobody's ever been able to run the numbers for the Catalyst lying and have them make any sense.

I can, but only just and it's a bit of a stretch.


At the risk of going somewhat off topic, it pretty much comes down to X vs Y, where:

X is the probability that the Catalyst is lying to you and  doing what it says will damage the Crucible in some way.

Y is the probability that the Crucible will activate if Shepard does nothing. (Someone else finds the real activation panel, or the Crucible merely has a charge-up period.)

If Y > (1-X) then Shepard's best choice is to stand around and do nothing.

However, Y is likely to be fairly small - Hackett's team should be able to detect any energy charge-up, but he's already told you that they can't seem to activate it on their end, while there is no-one else on the Citadel that could find a hypothetical real activation panel.
I also doubt that X is very close to 1 - ie, you only need to find the Catalyst vaguely trustworthy in order for trusting it to actually be the best option.

Modifié par JasonShepard, 17 septembre 2013 - 11:04 .

[AlanC9]

Oddly enough, Destroy is the option where you actually break stuff

[KaiserShep]

And breaking stuff does have its appeal.

[Jorji Costava]

I'm glad to see that these reviews were completed and bumped back to the front of the forums; they were all very in-depth and insightful. I've long since had my fun at the ending's expense, so I'll mostly leave that alone. I just wanted to pick up on the 'advancement is evil' idea for a while.

It probably goes back to ME1 to some extent, particularly with the proliferation of the 'scary AI' trope (the Geth in ME1 are pretty much just a Frankenstein story, after all). But I don't think that represents a strong, principled stand against advancement so much as simple homage to tropes we've seen in previous scifi (and this kind of homage is pretty much what ME1 is). There's lots of 'evil corporation' stuff in ME1 too (which isn't picked up in later games), but that's mostly just because evil mega-corporations are a staple of scifi. Ethan Jeong, for instance, is just ME's version of Carter Burke from Aliens.

I'm also not sure the theme is simply that advancement as such is bad; it's rather that unearned advancement is bad. We get the reveal that it was actually the Reapers who invented the mass relays, the Citadel, etc. The Protheans' greatest triumph turned out to be discovering mass relay technology on their own. And the Krogan are a lesson in the error of trying to elevate a species technologically before they're 'ready,' so to speak.

The idea that 'unearned' advancement is bad might be dumb as a policy, but it does connect with one of the few overarching themes of the series that has remained relatively consistent: The need to overcome one's history. Whether it's petty political squabbles, centuries-old racial hatred, or Freudian issues, every major character and every race is held back by its past and succeeds or fails based on whether or not they are able to break free of that past. As much as I hate to give the writers credit for this, the whole Garden of Eden business does have some relevance to this whole "clean slate" agenda of the game.

@AlanC9:

Just out of genuine curiosity, would you explain what you mean with the expression "outside the story?" Initially, one might take this to mean that when you're outside the story, the events you see aren't to be taken as literally happening in the story, but I suspect this isn't what you mean, so I'm interested to hear what you wanted to get at.

[MegaSovereign]

JasonShepard wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Nobody's ever been able to run the numbers for the Catalyst lying and have them make any sense.

I can, but only just and it's a bit of a stretch.


At the risk of going somewhat off topic, it pretty much comes down to X vs Y, where:

X is the probability that the Catalyst is lying to you and  doing what it says will damage the Crucible in some way.

Y is the probability that the Crucible will activate if Shepard does nothing. (Someone else finds the real activation panel, or the Crucible merely has a charge-up period.)

If Y > (1-X) then Shepard's best choice is to stand around and do nothing.

However, Y is likely to be fairly small - Hackett's team should be able to detect any energy charge-up, but he's already told you that they can't seem to activate it on their end, while there is no-one else on the Citadel that could find a hypothetical real activation panel.
I also doubt that X is very close to 1 - ie, you only need to find the Catalyst vaguely trustworthy in order for trusting it to actually be the best option.

During the first time I got the ending over a year ago, I didn't think the Catalyst was lying. I was more worried that through it's cold, perfect machine logic that there was a hidden "monkey's paw" type consequence. 

[JasonShepard]

@MegaSovereign: Yeah, that probably comes under X. I guess I could have defined my variables better. A more in-depth analysis would involve a full decision tree, but that'd require its own thread, and probably wouldn't develop much discussion...

Maybe I should do a blog entry on it at some point.

[SNascimento]

I'm enjoying the reading so far. It's good to see people being able to recognize ME3's many strong points, and also make a critic analize of its flaws.

By the way, could you, or anybody else, elaborate this: ""Goal-oriented evolution" should be a forbidden trope. That almost everyone gets this wrong is no excuse." I mean, evolution doesn't have a goal, but can't we create one for us? And isn't that what TIM and the Catalyst were trying to do?

[KingZayd]

JasonShepard wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Nobody's ever been able to run the numbers for the Catalyst lying and have them make any sense.

I can, but only just and it's a bit of a stretch.


At the risk of going somewhat off topic, it pretty much comes down to X vs Y, where:

X is the probability that the Catalyst is lying to you and  doing what it says will damage the Crucible in some way.

Y is the probability that the Crucible will activate if Shepard does nothing. (Someone else finds the real activation panel, or the Crucible merely has a charge-up period.)

If Y > (1-X) then Shepard's best choice is to stand around and do nothing.

However, Y is likely to be fairly small - Hackett's team should be able to detect any energy charge-up, but he's already told you that they can't seem to activate it on their end, while there is no-one else on the Citadel that could find a hypothetical real activation panel.
I also doubt that X is very close to 1 - ie, you only need to find the Catalyst vaguely trustworthy in order for trusting it to actually be the best option.

How do you know it's really Hackett speaking to you at that point? Starchild is apparently able to show you visions of Anderson and TIM activating the Crucible, and Reapers are pretty good at messing with your head.

The problem with trusting the Starchild is that it doesn't make sense, and that leads to the feeling that there is some deception involved.

Also, OP: I skipped to your review of the final mission but what you've written there seems mostly agreeable.

Modifié par KingZayd, 18 septembre 2013 - 11:04 .

[Mcfly616]

KingZayd wrote...

The problem with trusting the Starchild is that it doesn't make sense, and that leads to the feeling that there is some deception involved.

how doesn't it make sense?

[KingZayd]

Mcfly616 wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

The problem with trusting the Starchild is that it doesn't make sense, and that leads to the feeling that there is some deception involved.

how doesn't it make sense?

It being there on the Citadel all along, and not:
a) detecting and stopping the Prothean saboteurs messing with the Citadel -> Keeper signal.
not doing anything to reverse the sabotage. If it controls the Reapers, it should be able to control Sovereign. Sovereign instead has to discover that something is wrong far, far later. He doesn't know what is wrong exactly, and has to carry out his own investigation using Saren to locate the Ilos and discover what the Protheans did, so it can be undone.
c) Why does 

[Mcfly616]

KingZayd wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

The problem with trusting the Starchild is that it doesn't make sense, and that leads to the feeling that there is some deception involved.

how doesn't it make sense?

It being there on the Citadel all along, and not:
a) detecting and stopping the Prothean saboteurs messing with the Citadel -> Keeper signal.
not doing anything to reverse the sabotage. If it controls the Reapers, it should be able to control Sovereign. Sovereign instead has to discover that something is wrong far, far later. He doesn't know what is wrong exactly, and has to carry out his own investigation using Saren to locate the Ilos and discover what the Protheans did, so it can be undone.
c) Why does 

the Catalyst isn't physically capable of anything. It relies on its thralls (Reapers, Keepers, Collectors, indoctrinated agents etc etc) to carry out its work. They are all an extension of itself. It actually did use Sovereign (and by extension: Saren) to remedy the Prothean sabotage so that it could communicate with the Keepers in order to usher in the Reaper armada through the Citadel Relay. Ofcourse, we all know how that works out. Shepard throws a wrench in the spokes.

Modifié par Mcfly616, 18 septembre 2013 - 12:35 .

[KingZayd]

Mcfly616 wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

The problem with trusting the Starchild is that it doesn't make sense, and that leads to the feeling that there is some deception involved.

how doesn't it make sense?

It being there on the Citadel all along, and not:
a) detecting and stopping the Prothean saboteurs messing with the Citadel -> Keeper signal.

not doing anything to reverse the sabotage. If it controls the Reapers, it should be able to control Sovereign. Sovereign instead has to discover that something is wrong far, far later. He doesn't know what is wrong exactly, and has to carry out his own investigation using Saren to locate the Ilos and discover what the Protheans did, so it can be undone.

c) Why does Sovereign have to monitor the situation and send the Reaping signal again? The Starchild is on the Citadel, where the most advanced races in the galaxy already end up. Do the other Reapers just not like Sovereign?

d) Again does absolutely nothing to assist Sovereign through these issues and allows Sovereign to be destroyed. It's on the Citadel. Where the Council and governments of cycles past were likely located. It was designed to be a strategically appealing location. Oh well that's another civilisation down the drain. I thought the Starchild was trying to preserve them? How about the civilisation in the Derelict Reaper? That was abandoned too.

e) Harbinger seems to really quite picky about what civilisations he wants to preserve:
"Turian, you are considered too... primitive"
"Krogan, sterilized race, potential wasted"
"Asari, reliance upon alien species for reproduction shows genetic weakness"
"Salarian, life span too short, genetic code too fragile"
"Drell, useless... insufficient numbers"
"Quarian, considered due to cybernetic augmentation, weak immune system too debilitating"
"Human, viable possibility .... impressive biotic potential."
"Human, viable possibility... impressive genetic malleability."
"Human, viable possibility. Aggression factor useful if controlled."
"Human, viable possibility, if emotional drives are subjugated."
"Human, viable possibility... impressive technical potential."
"Geth, an annoyance... limited utility."

Looks like Harbinger is concerned not with preserving races, but more with picking the best Reaper-baby making material.

And we see this in Mass Effect 3, when the Reapers are happy to poision Tuchanka's atmosphere and allow the Geth to deal with the Quarians without Reaperising them.

f) Starchild claims the fact that Shepard is standing there shows that the Reaper solution won't work any more, but this is nonsense. Shepard had passed out without the Crucible activating. The anti-Reaper forces were being decimated. The Reapers had won. Shepard's only standing there because the Starchild decides to bring him upstairs.

g) There is no reason for the Starchild to require that only Shepard make the choice. If indeed the Reaper solution doesn't work any more, then there is no point in continuing with that. Shepard is only required for synthesis (for some arbitrary reason. The Reapers shouldn't have any trouble creating someone that's part organic part synthetic to go into the beam anyway, they've been making these cyborgs all the time). Control just requires someone willing to kill themselves, and destroy only requires someone that can shoot a tube. Just ease up on your attack and wait til else enters the beam and goes up to the control room. They'll try again as it's their only hope.

h) Synthesis hasn't worked worked in the past because it can't be forced (except when Shepard forces it), and because organics weren't ready. But now that Shepard has reached  been brought up to that room, all organics in the galaxy are now magically ready for synthesis! Even all those primitive species we haven't encountered yet.


I realise I go off topic a little below here, but I don't want to delete it now so I'll just separate it:

Starchild's power and strategic location do not seem at all compatible with it's refusal to have any impact on events in the past couple of cycles up to the point where it decides it wants to have a chat.

Any "preservation" of civilisations by the Reapers seems to be only incidental, and only brought about by the nature of their existence (requiring the genetic material of many members of a species). They preserve only the species they consider useful. It looks like they're farming us, rather than protecting us. They're protecting organic life in the same way we've protected cattle over the centuries.

Historically (I know there is  now a general effort to avoid wiping out species) we wouldn't want cattle to become extinct, because then we wouldn't get to have the milk, meat and leather. So if at a certain point they (like 15 years of age) there was a factor that would likely cause them to threaten the rest of the cattle (I dunno: let's say they tend to get ridiculously aggressive), then we would likely kill them before they get to that point. Yes at one level we're protecting the cattle population, but only because we're wanting to protect out supplies of milk, meat and leather.

This is how I see the situation with the Reapers and organo-synthetic conflict. The Reapers use organic material to make more Reapers. The Mass Relays serve not only to bring organic races to the Citadel, but also allow them to spread their populations among the many garden worlds of the galaxy. This leads to a huge population explosion and therefore more Reaper-baby making material. Two major factors limit the growth rates of these populations:

1) Eventually the garden worlds will run out, and resources will be limited. This is a really long term limiting factor.
2) War. In the case of organics destroying organics, the survivors will reproduce and increase the organic population again. In the case of synthetics destroying organics, the survivors have no organic material to contribute. In the case of organics destroying synthetics, the Reapers have no permanent setbacks (organic survivors will reproduce), but they gain nothing from it.

The Reapers are farming organic civilisations and this is what Sovereign is talking about when he says they "impose order on the chaos of organic evolution". They reap us before we create synthetics that severely reduce the yield of Reaper-baby making material, and they only reap the space-faring civilisations to minimise the delay between cycles.

[KingZayd]

Mcfly616 wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

The problem with trusting the Starchild is that it doesn't make sense, and that leads to the feeling that there is some deception involved.

how doesn't it make sense?

It being there on the Citadel all along, and not:
a) detecting and stopping the Prothean saboteurs messing with the Citadel -> Keeper signal.
not doing anything to reverse the sabotage. If it controls the Reapers, it should be able to control Sovereign. Sovereign instead has to discover that something is wrong far, far later. He doesn't know what is wrong exactly, and has to carry out his own investigation using Saren to locate the Ilos and discover what the Protheans did, so it can be undone.
c) Why does 

the Catalyst isn't physically capable of anything. It relies on its thralls (Reapers, Keepers, Collectors, indoctrinated agents etc etc) to carry out its work. They are all an extension of itself. It actually did use Sovereign (and by extension: Saren) to remedy the Prothean sabotage so that it could communicate with the Keepers in order to usher in the Reaper armada through the Citadel Relay. Ofcourse, we all know how that works out. Shepard throws a wrench in the spokes.

Why?  It's had billions of years. Why has it limited itself this way? It's illogical. 

Also: It waited thousands years for Sovereign to discover the issues himself. Didn't offer any clues as to what had happened, and didn't assist at all throughout the investigation.

Modifié par KingZayd, 18 septembre 2013 - 01:47 .

[Chashan]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I think people who read my Synthesis posts weren't necessarily aware that I've always been interpreting and writing about Synthesis in spite of and against the mystical and religious implications in the Catalyst scene, as well as against the suggestion that Reaper technology is evil which resulted in a dissonance when combined with the "join with the Other" theme in the Synthesis ending. I've always realized the story suggests all that, but since it's never made explicit, I did my best to interpret my way around all that. Why all that effort? Well, the alternative was to throw my hands up in disgust and leave ME behind, leaving the stories of my Shepards unfinished in my mind. I wasn't ready to do that after I spent so much time with them in ME1 and ME2.

I suppose I can sympathize with that stance to a certain extent. Yet, I hope you'll allow me to observe that it is not that drastically different from rejecting the scenario and character Green is a part and dependent on outright. For, as you ascertain yourself: messianic vibes are all but smacking one in the face with Green in particular.

Hence, given several other problems with the tri-colour-choice - its execution and arbitrary conditions, the characterization or lack there-of of the 'Catalyst' as well as the disconnected feel it has to what came before - I know why I prefer the story without it.

That does not mean that I am adverse to sacrifice or apotheosis-endings per se. I'll get to that in a bit.

CosmicGnosis wrote...

I just finished another playthrough of Jade Empire after many years, and I found myself somewhat uncomfortable with the story's message. It seems to condemn anyone who wishes to move beyond their station because it will disrupt the natural order of things. The Way of the Open Palm is all about harmony with the natural order, and the Way of the Closed Fist is all about discord and chaos. Open Palm often involves helping everyone no matter what, and Closed Fist is supposed to be about standing up for yourself no matter what. The game has some issues with Closed Fist, however, and the ending throws it off a cliff. The Closed Fist ending is clearly evil and tyrannical; you really do become the villain. And it's unfortunate, because I think it taints the whole concept of the Closed Fist. 

Maybe that wasn't really the intended message, but I suspect that Ieldra's head would still explode.

Thing is, Closed Fist also has pretty definite tones of throwing off the shackles of the imposed 'harmony' of the Celestial Bureaucracy, which evidently does not have the best of human interests in mind. Just think of the callous disregard by the Celestials of the Long Draught that led to the game's crises in the first place.
By abandoning that 'harmony' and asserting human self-determination free of divine whims uncaring for such extremes of human suffering, Man at least can be their own master.

I find that a beautiful message in that sense. Of course, Closed Fist is ruthless and brutal all things considered. Yet, it, along with the Open Palm, is given the entire game to unfold and express itself in the final choice of the game. And does so in an honest way, not quagmired by non-comitting undecisiveness as to the defined tone like ME3's disconnected final choice does.

iakus wrote...

I think the theme was reckless advancement is ultimately destructive.  It was about the dangers of reach exceeding grasp.  Cerberus' methods were not inly unethical (which was bad enough) but they tended to charge blindly ahead without assessing risks.  The result inevitably led to  experiments with a high body count.

And then of course, in the third game we are given no choice but to blindly charge ahead with a Crucible device we know nothing about, have no idea what it does.  Heck the most brilliant minds in the galaxy can barely comprehend the blueprints.  And simply trust that somehow it will stop the Reapers.  This flies in the face of the previous games' message of understanding what you are getting into.

This 'blindness' prior to the finale is something that I find sorely lacking as well, especially in regards to how BW handled this in the past as with Jade Empire. In JE's case, the game took its time to explain just how the capabilities of a Spirit Monk can be used. And that despite not being a story grounded in semi-hard science.

For ME3 to involve actual scientists of the game-world and not having those expositing the device's potential functions as the story progresses is, frankly, quite absurd and even inexcusable in comparison. Since it would have given reasonable room to lay out the end-game.
Frankly, that this wasn't done just betrays how little thought was given to the finale in advance on part of the writers involved.

Modifié par Chashan, 18 septembre 2013 - 03:25 .

[Ieldra]

Chashan wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

I think people who read my Synthesis posts weren't necessarily aware that I've always been interpreting and writing about Synthesis in spite of and against the mystical and religious implications in the Catalyst scene, as well as against the suggestion that Reaper technology is evil which resulted in a dissonance when combined with the "join with the Other" theme in the Synthesis ending. I've always realized the story suggests all that, but since it's never made explicit, I did my best to interpret my way around all that. Why all that effort? Well, the alternative was to throw my hands up in disgust and leave ME behind, leaving the stories of my Shepards unfinished in my mind. I wasn't ready to do that after I spent so much time with them in ME1 and ME2.

I suppose I can sympathize with that stance to a certain extent. Yet, I hope you'll allow me to observe that it is not that drastically different from rejecting the scenario and character Green is a part and dependent on outright. For, as you ascertain yourself: messianic vibes are all but smacking one in the face with Green in particular.

Hence, given several other problems with the tri-colour-choice - its execution and arbitrary conditions, the characterization or lack there-of of the 'Catalyst' as well as the disconnected feel it has to what came before - I know why I prefer the story without it.

That does not mean that I am adverse to sacrifice or apotheosis-endings per se. I'll get to that in a bit.

You're telling me that it would be better to throw out the Catalyst completely in my mind? Oh yes, most definitely it would, and I did say I am treating the Catalyst encounter as a black box. It was just beyond my ability to mentally rewrite that and still feel like it's the same story, and I would also have to introduce a new way to get all the exposition.

As for apotheosis-type endings (that would be Control), I do like them in sci-fi only if they don't have a religious overtone by fiat of the writer. Seems like a contradiction, perhaps, but may I direct you to the Orion's Arm Universe Project. There, there are entities which are revered as gods by some cultures, and they do have god-like powers. There is also an area of technology called "apotheonics". The difference to ME is that there this is all very well explained in terms of in-world logic (in fact, pains are taken to make nothing of it all contradict *real* science). These beings are powerful, but their ascendance is perfectly explainable by science, and any mystical or religious aspect is completely in the minds of others. There is a science that studies them featuring a classification system for cognitive powers, on which people can ascend using the aforementioned technology of apotheonics, which is also perfectly explained in the scientific terms of the universe, which are remarkably hard. "Becoming an AI god" in this universe carries no spiritual theme, except if you explicitly adopt that perspective. The default perspective is scientific. I wish ME had taken some inspiration of that. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 18 septembre 2013 - 03:24 .

[Ieldra]

SNascimento wrote...
I'm enjoying the reading so far. It's good to see people being able to recognize ME3's many strong points, and also make a critic analize of its flaws.

By the way, could you, or anybody else, elaborate this: ""Goal-oriented evolution" should be a forbidden trope. That almost everyone gets this wrong is no excuse." I mean, evolution doesn't have a goal, but can't we create one for us? And isn't that what TIM and the Catalyst were trying to do?

TIM was speaking as if there was such a thing like "the pinnacle of evolution." This is wrong in several ways: there isn't an end to evolution unless we make it end, there is no way to know if any given state cannot be surpassed in some way, there is no way to even define any given state as more "evolved" as any other in objective terms. Using the term "evolution" as if it had an objective direction is misleading.

If there's any concept with a reasonably objective claim as a measuring stick for evolution, it's survival, and by that, certain insects, reptiles and bacteria are far superior to humans. I take it TIM didn't mean we should become like those.

Had he said "Advancement beyond what our minds can now imagine", or "Surpassing even the Reapers themselves" that would have been perfectly acceptable. Deus Ex did it mostly right with Bob Page. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 18 septembre 2013 - 03:57 .

[Ieldra]

Also about the "unearned advancement": this is an ideological trap. There is no objective measure of whether or not you've earned something. When people use it, what they usually mean is "you don't deserve that power because you don't subscribe to my values."



.

[AlanC9]

MegaSovereign wrote...

During the first time I got the ending over a year ago, I didn't think the Catalyst was lying. I was more worried that through it's cold, perfect machine logic that there was a hidden "monkey's paw" type consequence. 

Sure, but that's not a very useful hypothesis. It's conceivable that there are unknown bad consequences to anything you do. Hell, maybe the Catalyst is right and Destroy really does lead to the extermination of organics somewhere down the line.

Modifié par AlanC9, 18 septembre 2013 - 09:07 .

[AlanC9]

osbornep wrote...

Just out of genuine curiosity, would you explain what you mean with the expression "outside the story?" Initially, one might take this to mean that when you're outside the story, the events you see aren't to be taken as literally happening in the story, but I suspect this isn't what you mean, so I'm interested to hear what you wanted to get at.

I only meant Shepard's outside the war story we'd been experiencing up to that point; turns out it isn't really a war and never was. Which is, of course, to take the Catalyst's perspective on the situation, but he's responsible for the situation and has seen more of it than Shepard has.

Though someone here had a hypothesis that the whole Catalyst sequence isn't physically real, but is a form of extended mental contact with the Catalyst. (Something like Overlord, etc.) For instance, Shepard doesn't actually shoot a tube to activate Destroy, shooting  something  is just a metaphor for ordering destructive action. I don't have a particular problem with that interpretation. It does clear up some obvious problems.

[AlanC9]

KingZayd wrote...

Also: It waited thousands years for Sovereign to discover the issues himself. Didn't offer any clues as to what had happened, and didn't assist at all throughout the investigation.

Note that with or without the Catalyst this is a problem. It's a critical intelligence failure on Sovereign's part if there's no Catalyst, since he had something like 48,000 years to do a preflight on the Citadel Relay before the asari occupied the place. I'm not sure how the Catalyst makes this any worse.

Modifié par AlanC9, 18 septembre 2013 - 09:12 .

[Reorte]

MegaSovereign wrote...

During the first time I got the ending over a year ago, I didn't think the Catalyst was lying. I was more worried that through it's cold, perfect machine logic that there was a hidden "monkey's paw" type consequence.

It gave me the impression that it was putting forward the truth as it saw it, trying to persuade Shepard to make the choice it wanted him to. The rather dubious explanations it offered reinforced this and the little more than a VI impression it gave me. The idea of intelligent, mostly self-controlling Reapers being under the influence of a fairly dumb system doesn't seem invalid (although I still think they work better as enemies if they're operating entirely of their own volition).

[jontepwn]

Mcfly616 wrote...

the Catalyst isn't physically capable of anything. It relies on its thralls (Reapers, Keepers, Collectors, indoctrinated agents etc etc) to carry out its work.

Well, he did somehow manage to move the elevator that brought up Shepard, and also raise the two walkways towards Control and Destroy endings (I'm presuming that was him who did that).

Unless we're supposed to believe he only has control of that one single elevator.

[CosmicGnosis]

Ieldra, I want to make sure that I completely understand your stance: You concede that Synthesis and Control don't really fit with the story that came before, but because you didn't like where the story was going, you are relieved that you can make those choices. Is that correct?

As for the whole Catalyst sequence, it really is baffling. I'm still not sure if it's supposed to be a plot twist. Are we supposed to be surprised that the Reapers actually had a reasonable purpose? Are we supposed to reject that purpose? Are we supposed to take the Catalyst seriously? Why can't we mention the outcome on Rannoch? Why can't we describe the irony of the Catalyst rebelling against its creators? Why are the negative consequences of the High-EMS endings ignored?

It's like the writers completely failed to realize that these are important points to discuss. And based on all of the post-release comments, they still don't seem to recognize what the main problems are. They seem to think that the Catalyst scene never contradicted the story's themes.

That is what makes all of this so frustrating. Here are two explanations about what possibly happened:

1. The writers failed to clearly convey that the ending is indeed a paradigm shift in our understanding of the Reaper conflict, and that we must abandon all preconceived notions about it.
2. The writers never noticed the thematic contradictions, and don't see anything wrong with the ending.

Modifié par CosmicGnosis, 18 septembre 2013 - 10:26 .

[JasonShepard]

AlanC9 wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Also: It waited thousands years for Sovereign to discover the issues himself. Didn't offer any clues as to what had happened, and didn't assist at all throughout the investigation.

Note that with or without the Catalyst this is a problem. It's a critical intelligence failure on Sovereign's part if there's no Catalyst, since he had something like 48,000 years to do a preflight on the Citadel Relay before the asari occupied the place. I'm not sure how the Catalyst makes this any worse.

Heh. I can see it now:

A few centuries after the completed harvest of the Protheans.

Bee-beep! Bee-beep!
Sovereign: YAWN... Ugh, what time is it? Oh, time to run the Citadel tests... Eh, they can wait. It's not like they've gone wrong in the previous 2000 cycles. Back to napping...

48,000 years later
Sovereign: DAMN IT!!

(Sovereign then decides to solve it single-handed, rather than calling for the fleet to take the long way, because he's too embarassed and doesn't want Harbinger to yell at him...)