347 réponses à ce sujet

[jontepwn]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

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.

I believe most of it was due to sloppy writing and lack of foresight. They probably intended the Catalyst meeting to be the revelatory moment where the truth of the Reapers is finally revealed. I don't think they counted on people calling the Catalyst a liar and refuting its claims so strongly. 

At the end of the day I don't think the writer's intentions matter much if it still results in confusion and disdain for the game.

Modifié par jontepwn, 18 septembre 2013 - 11:07 .

[KaiserShep]

CosmicGnosis wrote...
 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?

This is the single biggest failing of the encounter. While some might make excuses to account for these things being ignored in this conversation, the reality is that any outcomes of Rannoch vary far too drastically for anyone with half a brain to just take this idea as undisputed gospel. It comes with the same type of frustration of encountering an overly religious person who denies any facts that may contradict their beliefs, except the dialogue is hamstrung so you can't even bring it up.

[Ieldra]

CosmicGnosis wrote...
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?

Control fits nicely. This was a theme since the start of ME2 when Miranda told Shepard she wanted a control chip in his head and TIM said the best way to beat the Reapers would be to use their own resources against them.

Synthesis doesn't fit for three reasons:
(1) The explanation of its implementation isn't rationalized in terms of in-world logic. Everywhere else where mysticism was hinted at we could arrive at a reasonable rationalization in terms of the MEU's fictional science, even at the CB. Here that's extremely hard because if such an explanation existed, it would make no sense that the Catalyst didn't use it. Also, "transform the galaxy in a moment of green light" defies all such rationalization.
(2) ME3 sends messages reinforcing the traditional boundaries of the human condition. At times, it's explicitly anti-transhumanist, and it makes the point that Shepard is "fully human" regardless of the fact that biosynthetic fusion was used in his reconstruction.
(3) Synthesis gives the Reapers a role in civilization. One of themes clearly recognizable in the epilogue is "joining with the Other". This would be nice, except that for almost the whole of three games, the Reapers were painted as being offensive to every single one of our moral and aesthetic sensibilities.

However, this is ME3. My experiences with ME1 and ME2 paint a different picture. Both games were much less blatantly traditionalist. In the case of ME2, you could make a point it wasn't at all, except around the ending and the post-game DLC.  I think the writers' vision changed to a more traditionalist approach around the point where the CB scenario, LotSB and Arrival were designed, the change in EDI's speculation at the CB being most indicative of it.
So I feel justified in letting my perception of Synthesis be guided by ME1 and ME2 and in choosing for the outcome, disregarding the religious and mystical vibe and the fact that I'm basically doing the bidding of an "evil god". 
 

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.

This is what I've been confused about for more than a year, and I would really like to get some clarification about it. To me it seems most likely that Casey Hudson wanted certain themes to be clearly recognizable in ME3's story, culminating in the ending scenario, and sacrificed narrative coherence for it, one of them being the transformative power of a sacrifice and another painting synthetics as fundamentally "Other" by reinforcing the traditional boundaries of the human condition, which would necessitate that mystical transformative power to make the two opposites join. I have observed several times that the ending scenario works rather well on a thematic level, even with peace on Rannoch. On the thematic level, if you make peace on Rannoch the geth become individuals like organics, so they cease to be "Other", and you can deny this by choosing Destroy or complete the process with Synthesis. The whole thing fails completely on a narrative level, though, and compromises the integrity of the whole universe.  

[Eterna]

I'm more inclined to believe that the Writers simply ran out of time near the ending and had to come up with something.

[angol fear]

Eterna5 wrote...

I'm more inclined to believe that the Writers simply ran out of time near the ending and had to come up with something.

I disagree. The writing of the ending is too coherent to be a thing they have done "when they ran out of time".

[Obadiah]

Ieldra2 wrote...
...
 I like Javik's scene, too, but it is unfortunately indicative of how much of a mystical vibe the ME trilogy has acquired since the end of ME2.
...

Which Javik goodbye did you get:

• Book tour with Liara
• Suicide at graves of fallen Protheans (that was my interpretation anyway)
• Live like a king with Hanar (think this is the 3rd but not 100%)

...and did you think it changed your feelings on the goodbye?

Modifié par Obadiah, 19 septembre 2013 - 02:30 .

[Iakus]

Ieldra2 wrote...

This is what I've been confused about for more than a year, and I would really like to get some clarification about it. To me it seems most likely that Casey Hudson wanted certain themes to be clearly recognizable in ME3's story, culminating in the ending scenario, and sacrificed narrative coherence for it, one of them being the transformative power of a sacrifice and another painting synthetics as fundamentally "Other" by reinforcing the traditional boundaries of the human condition, which would necessitate that mystical transformative power to make the two opposites join. I have observed several times that the ending scenario works rather well on a thematic level, even with peace on Rannoch. On the thematic level, if you make peace on Rannoch the geth become individuals like organics, so they cease to be "Other", and you can deny this by choosing Destroy or complete the process with Synthesis. The whole thing fails completely on a narrative level, though, and compromises the integrity of the whole universe.  

Legion actually did a god job in ME2 as portraying the "Other"  He demonstrated that the geth are not in fact the "killer robots" everyone assumed them to be.  At the same time, it also showed that the geth view the galaxy very differently from organics.  Diffrerent perspectives, different priorities, thier minds operate on a level humans can't even comprehend.  In the end, the geth really were indifferent to organics in general.  Curious, perhaps, but not especially hostile or friendly, they just want to be left alone to find their own way in the galaxy.

Sadly, in ME3, this changed into a "Pinnochio" scenerio.  Now the geth want to be more like organics.  It's no longer enough for organics and synthetics to exist peacefully side by side, now they must surrender their uniqueness in order to live.  This is expressed ever stronger (and more horribly) in Synthesis.  It makes everyone special.  And when everyone is special...

[AlanC9]

Ieldra2 wrote...
However, this is ME3. My experiences with ME1 and ME2 paint a different picture. Both games were much less blatantly traditionalist. In the case of ME2, you could make a point it wasn't at all, except around the ending and the post-game DLC.  I think the writers' vision changed to a more traditionalist approach around the point where the CB scenario, LotSB and Arrival were designed, the change in EDI's speculation at the CB being most indicative of it.

Have you seen this?

Particularly the first item, though there's some ending material further down that's generally on-topic fir the thread.

[jontepwn]

iakus wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

This is what I've been confused about for more than a year, and I would really like to get some clarification about it. To me it seems most likely that Casey Hudson wanted certain themes to be clearly recognizable in ME3's story, culminating in the ending scenario, and sacrificed narrative coherence for it, one of them being the transformative power of a sacrifice and another painting synthetics as fundamentally "Other" by reinforcing the traditional boundaries of the human condition, which would necessitate that mystical transformative power to make the two opposites join. I have observed several times that the ending scenario works rather well on a thematic level, even with peace on Rannoch. On the thematic level, if you make peace on Rannoch the geth become individuals like organics, so they cease to be "Other", and you can deny this by choosing Destroy or complete the process with Synthesis. The whole thing fails completely on a narrative level, though, and compromises the integrity of the whole universe.   

Legion actually did a god job in ME2 as portraying the "Other"  He demonstrated that the geth are not in fact the "killer robots" everyone assumed them to be.  At the same time, it also showed that the geth view the galaxy very differently from organics.  Diffrerent perspectives, different priorities, thier minds operate on a level humans can't even comprehend.  In the end, the geth really were indifferent to organics in general.  Curious, perhaps, but not especially hostile or friendly, they just want to be left alone to find their own way in the galaxy.

Sadly, in ME3, this changed into a "Pinnochio" scenerio.  Now the geth want to be more like organics.  It's no longer enough for organics and synthetics to exist peacefully side by side, now they must surrender their uniqueness in order to live.  This is expressed ever stronger (and more horribly) in Synthesis.  It makes everyone special.  And when everyone is special...

Yes... I did not like the direction the story took in ME3. While "evil robots rebelling" and "robot pinnochio" tropes are horribly cliché and boring in and of themselves, we are now stuck with BW's vision where Synthesis is the pinnacle of existence, Destroy is delaying the inevitable demise of organic life and Control is creating a totalitarian regime of Shep-Reapers. According to BW the best way to end war and terror is to join the enemy and become a cog in the Reaper collective and live in a Borg utopia.

It really is a shame it turned out this way for Mass Effect.

Modifié par jontepwn, 19 septembre 2013 - 03:42 .

[Sherbet Lemon]

Ieldra,
I had never given much thought  (other than sarcasm and jokes) to Mass Effect's mysticism mostly because while I found it slightly irritating, I was able to move through the game without noticing it.  Now that I read your reviews, I see its more troubling aspects so thank you for sharing your views.

CosmicGnosis wrote...

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?

These are just my ramblely thoughts.  I don't know if they'll make sense, but meh...

Lately, I've come to think of these endings being emblematic of a problem between narrative and gameplay (the tension that exist between story and combat).  The assumption is that when we are making choices as Shepard, we are making them within the confines of the narrative (i.e. this is logical for the character to believe, this is not logical).  When it comes to gameplay, we know that we are playing a game.  During combat portions of the game, we exist in a hybrid state that is both aware of realities of the narrative and complicit with the notion that we are playing a game.  Complicit with this notion is that I think there is perhaps in the mind of the game, an implied contract between developer and player.  The segregation between narrative and "gameplay" will be apparent or at least experienced in a way that we recognize, accept and deem fair.  The narrative will be coherent and the desegregation will remain within the confines of what we have experienced and what we know to be reality.

1.  Shepard is trying to stop the reapers.
2. The reapers are our enemy.
3.  We win the game when we beat the reapers.
4. Choices we have made in the game will enable us to beat the Repears.
5. There will be consequences.

This a a simplified understanding of the narrative as presented to be the main conflict of Mass Effect.  Each game supplies its own internal arcs, but the basic narrative, the main motive for completing the game, is the same.  Gameplay (the meta knowledge of this understanding) seeks to support the narrative, but must remain wholly desegregated.  From the moment Shepard is pulled up to meet the Catalyst, we are no longer in narrative.  We are in gameplay.  We are in the hybrid state that is both awareness of the game, but this movement from narrative/story to gameplay feels arbitrary and foreign.  The developers have broken the contract (the unspoken pact) and placed us in a situation that is incongruent with our expectations.  They are relying on our knowledge of meta to make this arbitrary choice as presented by the catalyst.  This goes against the logic of what we expect as far as narrative and roleplay.

I expect perhaps, the devs figured us to make that transition with that implied understanding.  We can't do what you suggest (mention Rannoch, question the logic) because just as an Adept Shepard doesn't get to use Cloak, the choice presented in front of us are gameplay.  They are the final encounter.  They are the final boss.  The choice is meant to be accepted as truth.  It is the means to "win" the game.  

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.

Most of this I blame on that speech of Sovereign's (despite how epic and in-character it is).  The reality of the Reaper's motivations were always going to be something that we could understand despite his assertions otherwise.  This is where that moment of mysticism Ieldra talks begins (at least for me anyways).  If you consider the word "sovereign" and it's meaning it's implied to be almost god-like.  The notion of being "beyond our understanding" and "sovereign or supreme" is practically singing out "I am the most high."  What redeems that sort of theme is that in ME1 the "god-like entity" is killed and rendered ineffective.  Shepard's death and subsequent revival (which to this day is still so difficult for me swallow, it really streches my boundaries of what I can take) in ME2 stretches the idea of "myth" and resurrection, but the saving grace is that it is done at the hands of "science" and technology.  ME3's ending resolves itself by having us choose the "kill all the gods" at the expense of potentially killing allys and friends (if you look at EDI as a friend), controlling the gods which means you essentially become one, and joining the gods and sharing all that you are, your essence with the gods and the rest of the universe.  

I don't know if it's contradiction of themes or if in trying to philosophical and thoughtful about technology, it undermines every insightful comment which has been made about life, humanity, etc, because at the very core the Mass Effect  series has been embracing and rejecting the concept of mysticism throughout the entire series. This time, it just embraced it and ran with it.

Modifié par Village Idiot, 19 septembre 2013 - 06:37 .

[SNascimento]

What follows, however, is a storytelling crime of the first order: Miranda leaves. Consider: our next mission is Cerberus HQ. Miranda was second-in-command and knows the station - this is canon from the ME2 intro. Also, Miranda's Cerberus past has, to this point, been ignored as a dramatic concern, an aspect of her which had remained unresolved (and still is, sadly). Third, it would have been most fitting, even beautiful, to have her story end at the place where it began, where we saw her first speak with the Illusive Man in ME2. All the rules of plot, drama, character consistency and aesthetics in storytelling, everything screamed for Miranda to be there at Cronos Station - and she wasn't. Instead, she leaves with Oriana for an unknown location and doesn't even tell Shepard - even if romanced. It's been one year, and I still can't comprehend it

So, so true. And so sad. And having her at Cronos wouldn't even take much resources. Strahovski was already there, you just had to write a few lines and that was it. If she was dead, just make EDI takes her place, as she actually did.

I can only explain this with the developers thinking it would be unfair to other ME2's squadamtes who were not part of Shepard's squad. So they thought: let's butcher them all. At least it's fair.

[KaiserShep]

SNascimento wrote...
So, so true. And so sad. And having her at Cronos wouldn't even take much resources. Strahovski was already there, you just had to write a few lines and that was it. If she was dead, just make EDI takes her place, as she actually did.

I had always wondered why she didn't play a part in this at all if she survived Sanctuary, but thinking on your next point:

I can only explain this with the developers thinking it would be unfair to other ME2's squadamtes who were not part of Shepard's squad. So they thought: let's butcher them all. At least it's fair.

I suspect that this may have been the case, because even if the plot must be able to function without her presence, there's no real reason why she can't become a squad member for at least this one mission, and she could even have been situated in the war room like Legion, Wrex and Tali were. Hell, Tali was able to come along as part of the combat team even though she was not yet recruited back to the Normandy. But going back to the other point, I imagine that in doing so, her recruitment after Sanctuary instantly gives her tons more content than the other romance-able characters, since hitting Cronos station calls up the intimate scene in Shepard's cabin, which would be denied to Jackmancers (and it would be pretty weird if she's your LI but never comes up).

Modifié par KaiserShep, 20 septembre 2013 - 06:30 .

[andy6915]

jontepwn wrote...

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.

No, the Crucible made the elevator move by making the Catalyst do it against its will.

It appears that many have forgotten the stuff I've said on the Catalyst. I suppose I'll do a bit of reposting.

http://social.biowar...ndex/15317037/1

andy69156915 wrote...

I've seen it around the forum enough now to realize that it's not a few people misunderstanding, it's nearly everyone. I've copied and pasted a post I made about this once already to respond to a refuse thread, but now I'm thinking that I might need to give that pasted post its own thread.

Most of you "refuse" guys think that anything but refuse is letting the Catalyst dictate the terms? No, that's not how it worked. The Crucible was forcing him to relay information whether he liked it or not, even forcing him to bring up the destroy option when it was the number 1 thing he DIDN'T want chosen... And even explain how to doit. He also hated control, but was forced to mention it too. He didn't have a say in anything. If I decide to choose destroy or control, the best he can do is whine about it because he has absolutely no recourse to stop me. He can't even try a lie of omission, because the Crucible wasn't letting him do that either.

He didn't help you by choice, he didn't want to, gave you options he despised and told you how to do it regardless of his opinions, and was even forced to bring you up on that elevator at the control panel (the fact that he acts really really ticked off when he does this a low EMS is proof of that, because why else would he bring you up if he didn't even want you up there to begin with?). He was 100%at your mercy, being forced to do what you and the Crucible demanded.

That is also why refuse shuts down the Crucible. The Crucible was linked with you, and was doing what you asked it to. From the moment you touched the control panel, it was doing what your mind told it to. When yourefuse, you're pretty much telling the Crucible to shut down. It's asking you through the Catalyst "what do you wish this program to perform?", and refusing is like you clicking cancel. Think of it as a computer, you have an EXE file (a non-virus one, before someone gets cute) asking what you wish to do and refusing is you clicking to cancel the file altogether. The moment you did that, the Catalyst stopped being controlled by the Crucible and regained full control of himself, which is why he's suddenly talking like a Reaper and making it clear that he's going to keep killing everyone, you handed the choice back to the Reapers by choice because of refusing. Refusing is telling the Crucible to shut down and allowing the Catalyst to regain control... Which is why it's such a supremely stupid choice. So when the Crucible asks what  function you want done, give it a real answer, don't close the program out of fear.

Bottom line, the Catalyst was a scared litte b**ch who could at best use some word manipulation to try to coerce you into picking the option he preferred... Or do something supremely stupid and reject the Crucible by mentally rejecting it either by saying it out loud as you thought it in your head or by shooting the Crucible's current mouthpiece. Make no mistake, destroy is the very last thing he wants. When you go up there with low EMS and destroy is the only option, he's sounds really angry. That anger is because he knows that he doesn't even have a chance to avoiding destroy, there's no options but that. Yet he still has to bring you up there even though you coming up angers him so much. Kind of telling actually (doesn't want you up there=brings you up anyway=clearly not a being in control of themselves).


Now, I know this thread isn't going to somehow make this false idea that the Catalyst is in control of the conversation. But if it makes even a few less posts happen saying that then before this thread, it was worth it.

andy69156915 wrote...

Uncle Jo -

So he brings you up on that elevator on low EMS even though he doesn't want you anywhere near him because he knows destroy will be what you're going to do? That's logical to you? He's also going to bring up destroy and control, 2 things he absolutely detests, even though he could have just lied and said that those weren't options? Heck, with control he's pretty much "I don't want to be replaced or controlled by YOU!" and Shepard's pretty much "suck it up, I don't give a damn what your opinion is, control it is".

But of course, the Catalyst is somehow choosing to do thing he hates and has no reason to do whatsoever, and won the moment you collapsed at the control panel. That was it, gameover, Reapers win. So why bring you up, if he's not being forced to?

Frankly your stance has much more glaring flaws and holes then what my stance. There are inconsistencies that simply cannot be argued around if your stance is that the Catalyst has the control and is the one dictating the "terms".

Ticonderoga117-

The Catalyst is the processor ofthe Citadel, and the Crucible pretty much hacks it when it docks. It took control of the Catalyst by proxy of controlling the Citadel. Hack the Citadel=hack the Catalyst. Prior knowledge of the Catalyst was not needed, controlling one is controlling the other. It was forcing the Citadel to give you the information on the different options, and the Catalyst just happened to be the mouthpiece for it because it's pretty much the mind and voice of the station. He became the interface of the Crucible.

Modifié par andy69156915, 20 septembre 2013 - 08:02 .

[Ieldra]

@andy:
As I've repeatedly said, the Catalyst is a storytelling problem. The question isn't "what really happened?" (we don't know), but "what does the imagery suggest". And the imagery suggests that Shepard collapses and is raised up to the Crucible platform by an external agent, to come face to face with the MEU's god analogue who provides him with a few ways to solve a problem Shepard may or may not believe in.

It's certainly possible that the Crucible forced the Catalyst to say all that. It's certainly how I envision things to happen in my games, but all we have to support it is the single line "The Crucible changed me, created new.....possibilities". Under the weight of the imagery, the apparent sovereignity of the Catalyst and Shepard's collapse at the control panet which in combination suggest that Shepard loses agency while the Catalyst retains mastery, this line is so narratively insignificant that it takes considerable mental effort to make it the base of the complete scenario. I've done more interpretation of the ending than most people, tweaked it this way and that, but even I cannot escape the feeling that "The bad guy tells me how to solve my problem with him."

Something went wrong if the most significant reason to reject "the bad guy tells me how to solve my problem with him" is to say "Stories usually don't work that way, and I can't believe ME3 is different".

Here's one additional consideration: we know the writers have taken inspiration from The Hero's Journey. There is, therein, an element of the tradition that you don't judge "higher powers" because they're wiser then mere humans, and the imagery suggests that the Catalyst was supposed to come across as such. Unfortunately for those who designed the ending, most people appear to be a little more emancipated these days, and being a higher power doesn't give you the moral high ground by definition any more. It would've been the Catalyst's task to justify not just what it did - preserving a species in Reaper form is something I can accept as not necessarily inappropriate from the point of view of a completely non-human AI - but also how it did it, and for that there is no justification that could remove it from the villain's position.

[Iakus]

[quote]andy69156915 wrote...

[quote]jontepwn wrote...

[quote]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. [/quote]

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.
[/quote]

No, the Crucible made the elevator move by making the Catalyst do it against its will.

It appears that many have forgotten the stuff I've said on the Catalyst. I suppose I'll do a bit of reposting.

http://social.biowar...ndex/15317037/1

[quote]andy69156915 wrote...

I've seen it around the forum enough now to realize that it's not a few people misunderstanding, it's nearly everyone. I've copied and pasted a post I made about this once already to respond to a refuse thread, but now I'm thinking that I might need to give that pasted post its own thread.

[quote]Most of you "refuse" guys think that anything but refuse is letting the Catalyst dictate the terms? No, that's not how it worked. The Crucible was forcing him to relay information whether he liked it or not, even forcing him to bring up the destroy option when it was the number 1 thing he DIDN'T want chosen... And even explain how to doit. He also hated control, but was forced to mention it too. He didn't have a say in anything. If I decide to choose destroy or control, the best he can do is whine about it because he has absolutely no recourse to stop me. He can't even try a lie of omission, because the Crucible wasn't letting him do that either.

He didn't help you by choice, he didn't want to, gave you options he despised and told you how to do it regardless of his opinions, and was even forced to bring you up on that elevator at the control panel (the fact that he acts really really ticked off when he does this a low EMS is proof of that, because why else would he bring you up if he didn't even want you up there to begin with?). He was 100%at your mercy, being forced to do what you and the Crucible demanded.

That is also why refuse shuts down the Crucible. The Crucible was linked with you, and was doing what you asked it to. From the moment you touched the control panel, it was doing what your mind told it to. When yourefuse, you're pretty much telling the Crucible to shut down. It's asking you through the Catalyst "what do you wish this program to perform?", and refusing is like you clicking cancel. Think of it as a computer, you have an EXE file (a non-virus one, before someone gets cute) asking what you wish to do and refusing is you clicking to cancel the file altogether. The moment you did that, the Catalyst stopped being controlled by the Crucible and regained full control of himself, which is why he's suddenly talking like a Reaper and making it clear that he's going to keep killing everyone, you handed the choice back to the Reapers by choice because of refusing. Refusing is telling the Crucible to shut down and allowing the Catalyst to regain control... Which is why it's such a supremely stupid choice. So when the Crucible asks what  function you want done, give it a real answer, don't close the program out of fear. [/quote]

Bottom
line, the Catalyst was a scared litte b**ch who could at best use some word manipulation to try to coerce you into picking the option he preferred... Or do something supremely stupid and reject the Crucible by mentally rejecting it either by saying it out loud as you thought it in your head or by shooting the Crucible's current mouthpiece. Make no mistake, destroy is the very last thing he wants. When you go up there with low EMS and destroy is the only option, he's sounds really angry. That anger is because he knows that he doesn't even have a chance to avoiding destroy, there's no options but that. Yet he still has to bring you up there even though you coming up angers him so much. Kind of telling actually (doesn't want you up there=brings you up anyway=clearly not a being in control of themselves).


Now, I know this thread isn't going to somehow make this false idea that the Catalyst is in control of the conversation. But if it makes even a few less posts happen saying that then before this thread, it was worth it.
[/quote]

[quote]andy69156915 wrote...

Uncle Jo -

So he brings you up on that elevator on low EMS even though he doesn't want you anywhere near him because he knows destroy will be what you're going to do? That's logical to you? He's also going to bring up destroy and control, 2 things he absolutely detests, even though he could have just lied and said that those weren't options? Heck, with control he's pretty much "I don't want to be replaced or controlled by YOU!" and Shepard's pretty much "suck it up, I don't give a damn what your opinion is, control it is".

But of course, the Catalyst is somehow choosing to do thing he hates and has no reason to do whatsoever, and won the moment you collapsed at the control panel. That was it, gameover, Reapers win. So why bring you up, if he's not being forced to?

Frankly your stance has much more glaring flaws and holes then what my stance. There are inconsistencies that simply cannot be argued around if your stance is that the Catalyst has the control and is the one dictating the "terms".

Ticonderoga117-

The Catalyst is the processor ofthe Citadel, and the Crucible pretty much hacks it when it docks. It took control of the Catalyst by proxy of controlling the Citadel. Hack the Citadel=hack the Catalyst. Prior knowledge of the Catalyst was not needed, controlling one is controlling the other. It was forcing the Citadel to give you the information on the different options, and the Catalyst just happened to be the mouthpiece for it because it's pretty much the mind and voice of the station. He became the interface of the Crucible.

[/quote]



That...that's some industrial-stength headcanon.  

[andy6915]

It's not headcanon. As I said, if I'm wrong, then PLEASE tell me why the Catalyst brings you up at low EMS? It knows your ONLY option will be killing all the Reapers which it doesn't want, and even acts ANGRY about why you're up there after the elevator brings you up. It brings you up when it doesn't want you up there and then gets mad at you for it, and then tells you how to destroy them anyway. Does that seem like the actions of a being in control of itself? No, it sounds like a being that is forced to do the bidding of something else.

low EMS Catalyst talk for reference:

[Iakus]

First, that's pre EC.

http://www.youtube.c...HLyyIjuo#t=1101

Second it still says "But it also proves that my solution won't work anymore" Heck, most of what the Catalyst says is still the same. Though interestingly, it no longer says "I cannot help you. And I won't" It just says there is only one way to end this.

Why the Catalyst brings you up at any EMS doesn't make sense at all. That's part of the WTF of the entire ending, given letting Shepard bleed out, or even just stay unconscious would have meant the Catalyst wins, and the cycle continues.

[andy6915]

It still angrily asks why Shepard is there (even though the Catalyst apparently was the one who brought you up) and still gives you the keys to killing it. The changes made with EC don't really change anything about what I said. And you're right, it bringing you up at low EMS is a "wtf"... So then you have to ask why. And the answer to that why is the stuff I have said.

[Iakus]

andy69156915 wrote...

It still angrily asks why Shepard is there (even though the Catalyst apparently was the one who brought you up) and still gives you the keys to killing it. The changes made with EC don't really change anything about what I said. And you're right, it bringing you up at low EMS is a "wtf"... So then you have to ask why. And the answer to that why is the stuff I have said.

But like I said, the Catalyst no longer declares "I won't help you". 

When Shepard asks why it's giving the last-minute exposition dump, The Catalyst simply says "You have altered the variables" but it says that no matter what the EMS is.  It still declares SHepard to be the "first organic ever" to reach this place.  It also gives you the "keys to killing it" no matter the EMS (unless you only have Control unlocked)

There's maybe a half dozen words difference between high EMS and Low EMS Catalyst.

I find the entire Catalyst to be a complete WTF.  I find it to be a word baby someone was unwilling to give up so it got shoehorned in no matter how poor the fit.

[andy6915]

Right, the Crucible altered the variables. It altered it in that it hacked the Catalyst and would keep it controlled as long as it was on and intact. Of course that's why the Catalyst has its Reapers trying as much as possible to destroy the Crucible ASAP even while it talks, because it knows it needs destroyed to save itself and free itself from the Crucibles control.

Or did you realize that? If you take too long making a choice, the Crucible is destroyed by the Reapers. So it's talking like it wants to help you make a choice, and yet it's ordering its Reaper forces to destroy the very thing giving you the ability to do anything to the Reapers. "I want to help you" and "I want to utterly destroy the thing giving you any hope at all" are contradicting... Unless the Crucible has hacked the Catalyst. Then it makes sense. It's talking to you and explaining and giving you choices because its being forced too, all the while the Catalyst has its Reapers doing a full assault on the Crucible because it knows that it is being forced to give its enemy the knowledge and keys to victory as long as the Crucible is intact and so it wants it destroyed ASAP. It wanted the Crucible reduced to rubble, or failing that for Shepard to either stupidly shut the Crucible back off or at least do the synthesis thing so at least its goals are somewhat achieved... Neither of which are even possible at low EMS, yet it still brings you up.

Face it, all the evidence points to this. Yet just about nobody realizes it.

Modifié par andy69156915, 20 septembre 2013 - 09:44 .

[GreyLycanTrope]

Except for that bit were he can just plain shut down the Crucible if you shoot him. And several other issues like the designers being able to hack an AI who's existence they were unaware of. And why is it trying to free itself ASAP from a solution it admits to be it's main objective. I'm getting a lot of specious reasoning from your posts.

[andy6915]

Did you miss the several paragraphs where I said that is you telling the Crucible to shut off? You must have, it was only a SIGNIFICANT part of my post, and you're acting like I didn't address that. Read everything before responding next time.

[GreyLycanTrope]

andy69156915 wrote...

Did you miss the several paragraphs where I said that is you telling the Crucible to shut off? You must have, it was only a SIGNIFICANT part of my post, and you're acting like I didn't address that. Read everything before responding next time.

I'm saying your point doesn't address the issue, you can tell him you're going to use the crucible with the full intention of doing so pop one shot off in frustration and doom the galaxy. He's a hologram he shouldn't react at all, especially if he's truly been hacked.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 20 septembre 2013 - 10:49 .

[andy6915]

If the Catalyst is being used as a mouthpiece and is actually speaking for the Crucible, then shooting the Catalyst is in effect shooting the Crucible. The Crucible reads the intention there as being a rejection, and it turns off in response. The Catalyst has no control over it being turned on or not, if it did it would just shut it off right off the bat. Instead, it commands the Reapers to attack and destroy the Crucible. Why would it bother making them destroy it the slow way and risk Shepard screwing everything up instead of just pressing the off switch and being done with it? Why would it bring Shepard up at low EMS and not just shut the Crucible off even when the only possible choice is the worst one to the Catalyst's perspective? Because it CAN'T.

[Iakus]

andy69156915 wrote...

Right, the Crucible altered the variables. It altered it in that it hacked the Catalyst and would keep it controlled as long as it was on and intact. Of course that's why the Catalyst has its Reapers trying as much as possible to destroy the Crucible ASAP even while it talks, because it knows it needs destroyed to save itself and free itself from the Crucibles control.

The Crucible is little more than a power source.

The Citadel is a gun
The Crucible is a bullet for the gun

That's how it alters the variables

Or did you realize that? If you take too long making a choice, the Crucible is destroyed by the Reapers. So it's talking like it wants to help you make a choice, and yet it's ordering its Reaper forces to destroy the very thing giving you the ability to do anything to the Reapers. "I want to help you" and "I want to utterly destroy the thing giving you any hope at all" are contradicting... Unless the Crucible has hacked the Catalyst. Then it makes sense. It's talking to you and explaining and giving you choices because its being forced too, all the while the Catalyst has its Reapers doing a full assault on the Crucible because it knows that it is being forced to give its enemy the knowledge and keys to victory as long as the Crucible is intact and so it wants it destroyed ASAP. It wanted the Crucible reduced to rubble, or failing that for Shepard to either stupidly shut the Crucible back off or at least do the synthesis thing so at least its goals are somewhat achieved... Neither of which are even possible at low EMS, yet it still brings you up.

Face it, all the evidence points to this. Yet just about nobody realizes it.

Conjecture is not evidence.

But hey, whatever headcanon gets you through the endings, I guess.  I've heard crazier theories.

But I still think you're giving Bioware way too much credit.

Modifié par iakus, 20 septembre 2013 - 11:14 .