606 réponses à ce sujet

[Maxster_]

AlanC9 wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...
Which is pure bull****, given the refusal ending.
And of course it is bull**** long before that, because Crucible could not be created at all.
And of course, he tells you that he is bound to the Crucible, and the choices it provides you. Sure, for an entity which strategy relies on manipulation and brainwashing, he is telling the truth, yes.

This doesn't make much sense. If you mean he's lying about something, what's he lying about?

That he is bound by Crucible. He can turn it off any time, and he does that when Shepard tries to set his own terms.
Terms are set by the victor, you know. Thus - it is a surrender(which is obvious, given the "reapers arrival" retcon, which nullified entire plot of ME1 also). Catalyst refuses to negotiate terms - thus it is an unconditional surrender under the threat of death(which actually spoken by Catalyst).
Catalyst is obviously crazy, given nonsense he says.

[Maxster_]

StreetMagic wrote...

It's just funny to me that Hudson was probably shooting for something profound and ominous, like the Architect in Matrix.. but the Catalyst is nutty and stupid, crazier than Leoben in Battlestar. He's similar though.

Ugh..

[Maxster_]

StreetMagic wrote...

You got to admit, the Architect was done better. Even though he spewed nonsense, it was so nonsensical that it couldn't even be addressed. Like he actually appeared to be above and beyond typical thought. The Catalyst is easier to rip apart though.

Well, it somewhat fits cyberpunk genre, anti-utopia with irrelevant choice(irrelevant, because all terms and consequences are set by antagonist and you can't change anything).
It just doesn't fit heroic adventure like ME.

[Iakus]

txgoldrush wrote...

iakus wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

So a villain can't have problems in his logic?

There is a flaw with the Catalyst...it simply put, does not truly understand organic life.

If you have to capitualte to that logic, yes

and how is destroy capitulating?

Catalyst:  Organics and Synthetics cannot coexist peacefully

Destroy:  Exterminate one side of the conflict (synthetics)
Control:  The Reapers impose peace on the organics and synthetics
Synthesis:  You force both sides into a third group against their will.

All fit thematically in the Catalyst's declaration.  Not one of these endings allow the galaxy to seek thier own destiny on their own terms.  Refuse appears to be this on the surface, but rapidly turns into a "Screw You!" ending

In other words:  Principles are for suckers.  Pick your evil and run with it.

[KiwiQuiche]

iakus wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

iakus wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

So a villain can't have problems in his logic?

There is a flaw with the Catalyst...it simply put, does not truly understand organic life.

If you have to capitualte to that logic, yes

and how is destroy capitulating?

Catalyst:  Organics and Synthetics cannot coexist peacefully

Destroy:  Exterminate one side of the conflict (synthetics)
Control:  The Reapers impose peace on the organics and synthetics
Synthesis:  You force both sides into a third group against their will.

All fit thematically in the Catalyst's declaration.  Not one of these endings allow the galaxy to seek thier own destiny on their own terms.  Refuse appears to be this on the surface, but rapidly turns into a "Screw You!" ending

In other words:  Principles are for suckers.  Pick your evil and run with it.

It's kinda sad that is what ME3's end boils down to.

Modifié par KiwiQuiche, 15 juin 2013 - 01:50 .

[AlanC9]

Maxster_ wrote...

That he is bound by Crucible. He can turn it off any time, and he does that when Shepard tries to set his own terms.
Terms are set by the victor, you know. Thus - it is a surrender(which is obvious, given the "reapers arrival" retcon, which nullified entire plot of ME1 also). Catalyst refuses to negotiate terms - thus it is an unconditional surrender under the threat of death(which actually spoken by Catalyst).
Catalyst is obviously crazy, given nonsense he says.

This is awfully silly.

All Refuse proves is that he obeys Shepard's orders. Don't want to use the Crucible?  It's off.

Unless you're saying that the Catalyst designed the Crucible or something.

Modifié par AlanC9, 15 juin 2013 - 01:53 .

[Maxster_]

iakus wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

iakus wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

So a villain can't have problems in his logic?

There is a flaw with the Catalyst...it simply put, does not truly understand organic life.

If you have to capitualte to that logic, yes

and how is destroy capitulating?

Catalyst:  Organics and Synthetics cannot coexist peacefully

Destroy:  Exterminate one side of the conflict (synthetics)
Control:  The Reapers impose peace on the organics and synthetics
Synthesis:  You force both sides into a third group against their will.

All fit thematically in the Catalyst's declaration.  Not one of these endings allow the galaxy to seek thier own destiny on their own terms.  Refuse appears to be this on the surface, but rapidly turns into a "Screw You!" ending

In other words:  Principles are for suckers.  Pick your evil and run with it.

I especially like synthesis "message" : peace can only be achieved by homogenization and brainwashing.
Well, eternal military dictatorship and genocide are no better, but synthesis one is especially bright and hopeful.

[Maxster_]

AlanC9 wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

That he is bound by Crucible. He can turn it off any time, and he does that when Shepard tries to set his own terms.
Terms are set by the victor, you know. Thus - it is a surrender(which is obvious, given the "reapers arrival" retcon, which nullified entire plot of ME1 also). Catalyst refuses to negotiate terms - thus it is an unconditional surrender under the threat of death(which actually spoken by Catalyst).
Catalyst is obviously crazy, given nonsense he says.

This is awfully silly.

Sure, sure.

All Refuse proves is that he obeys Shepard's orders. Don't want to use the Crucible?  It's off.

Now Catalyst obeys to Shepard's orders. :lol::lol:
But only specific orders, which he set up by himself.
Riiight.

And this is credible, because he tells you it is :lol:

[AlanC9]

Maxster_ wrote...

Now Catalyst obeys to Shepard's orders. :lol::lol:
But only specific orders, which he set up by himself.
Riiight.

And this is credible, because he tells you it is :lol:

What's the argument here?

If he's lying, what's  he lying about? Are you saying the Crucible really does have other abilities?

Modifié par AlanC9, 15 juin 2013 - 02:01 .

[Hellosanta]

Sad thing about these ending debates flying all around web is that .. people think that Mass Effect trilogy sucks because of all negative ending reviews. It's making very bad preconception for people who has not experienced ME yet. I have some friends who decide not to even bother to play Mass Effect due to negative ending reviews. I personally felt the ending was OK after Extended Cut and Citadel DLCs, but people don't listen to me anymore.

[Maxster_]

AlanC9 wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

Now Catalyst obeys to Shepard's orders. :lol::lol:
But only specific orders, which he set up by himself.
Riiight.

And this is credible, because he tells you it is :lol:

What's the argument here?

If he's lying, what's  he lying about?

You have made up some headcanon, to "prove" that he is not lying about Crucible function.
"Without us, synthetics will destroy all organics" - is another lie. Or, insanity.
"The created will always rebel against their creators". Plain lie. Reapers haven't rebelled against Catalyst, you know. Not to mention that this statement makes no sense.
Then he says, that there is a problem of "chaos", and solution to that - is to "preserve organic life". Implying that organics are "Chaos"(which also stated by Sovereign). Then he says, that "destroy" is a bad option, because organics will create synthetics(which is also nonsensical absolute statement), and thus "chaos is back", saying that synthetics is chaos. Well that could go to insanity part of Catalyst's behavior.

Also, he lies about "preservation". He "preserved" one race max per cycle, and others just wiped out.
"I embody the collective intelligence of all Reapers" - also a lie.
"Reapers harvest all life - organic and synthetic - preserving them, before they are forever lost to this conflict" - is also a lie.
Also, saying reapers have no free will(basically, dumb robots, infamous "fire example") - directly contradicts ME1, and common sense.
And he lies about Crucible's functions - for "destroy" it can't discriminate, and for "control" and "synthesis" - can.


Overall, entire conversation is utter nonsense and insanity, with a non-working "solution" to a non-existent "problem".

[Tron Mega]

AlanC9 wrote...

Tron Mega wrote...

i was never bound to the crucible.

thats why i picked refuse.

hacket, and subsequently the rest of the galaxy, were just written into being morons.

Morons because they trusted your Shepard? 

no.

morons because they were written by bioware.

alan, for someone that seems interested in understanding something, id think youd understand whats going on here.

if not, reread maxsters posts, a few times.

Modifié par Tron Mega, 15 juin 2013 - 02:34 .

[Maxster_]

StreetMagic wrote...

I kind of believe the Catalyst. I just blame the writer for how it's implemented. His sole reason for relinquishing power is "Because the old solution no longer works." So he's completely resigned to having his existence destroyed even, if Shep chooses that.

They could have come up with a better way to do this.

Better yet, not do it all. But whatever.

If they hadn't retconned ME1 with "reapers arrival", there could be many variants, including reapers staying in dark space, reapers losing majority of their power because they couldn't use Citadel relay, and like that - thus allowing either a conventional victory, or unconventional in dark space.
But then there would be no catalyst's nonsensical crap and synthesis's anti-scientifical garbage. Which is obviously, would be bad.

[Iakus]

Maxster_ wrote...
Well, eternal military dictatorship and genocide are no better, but synthesis one is especially bright and hopeful.

Sure.

If you're a fan of The Stepford Wives 

[GreatBlueHeron]

TMZuk wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Because they fail to even pinpoint the central conflict, especially with the Catalyst.

The ending is NOT about organics and synthetics, its about sacrifice.

Why?

Because that's what the central conflict revolves around. In fact, organics and synthetics theme only matters in the synthesis ending. The central conflict is one of METHOD not MOTIVE. In fact, Shepard really doesn't argue to the motives, he argues against his methods. This is why you can't go...."well, Starchild, geth and quarian peace can prove you wrong" because that simply is not the conflict Shepard has with him, the conflict is his cycle.

Also, the TIM conflict is not about destroying the Reapers or controlling them (although it can be with a Paragon) its about once again, not only his methods, but that they are counterproductive (as well as he is indoctrinated).

This is the protagonist and antagonist conflict.......the protagonist is willing to sacrifice himself or herself to preserve the galaxy and the ones they love, and call for others to sacrifice not without thought or feeling. The antagonists, both TIM and the Catalyst, ruthlessly sacrifice lives to pursue their goals and motives, with no thought whatsoever. THIS IS THE CONFLICT. And the entire Catalyst conversation shows the Catalyst's character flaw, he simply doesn't truly understand organics and their are hints of this throughout the conversation, especially if Shepard dissents some of the choices.

This is the central conflict not only of the ending, not only of Mass Effect 3, but the entire trilogy. But nope, BSNers don't recognize the obvious, harping on the Catalyst's motives while completely ignoring Shepards arguments in the end. Nevermind the Catalyst's creation strikes at the heart another theme, people are willing to create or harness things that they do not understand to pursue their goals and solutions to problems, backfiring due to lack of understanding.

This is why Shepard had to sacrifice to fire the Crucible, the themes define him as such.

So when anti enders say that the themes of the ending come out of nowhere, they really do not get it.

Sorry.... but.... NO!

The Starbrat is a Deux Ex Machina, and it forces Shepard into a role that is totally counter to how he/she has been throughout the game. I have NEVER perceived Shepard as someone willing to lie down and die for the greater good. I have never played any of my Shepards like that, and I resent the very idea. Shepard is a resourceful pragmatic soldier. Not the second coming of Christ.

The martyr-dom forced upon my character is the most sickening part of the ending. Shepard becomes a contrived and embarrasing Space Messiah! I am an atheist to boot, and this quasi-religious BS is causing the bile to rise in my throat!

I, also an atheist, really did not like the ending for this reason.  The entire series focused on teamwork...emphasising that no one person could do it alone....and the last 15 minutes took a crap all over it.  The Shep I played was not a messiah, but was forced to be one at the end.
Also, the option to destroy given by the catalyst makes no sense, unless it was a computational error.  That's what I keep telling myself.

[blueumi]

I went in to mass effect 3 expecting shepard would die and if that was all that happend it would be fine but nothing excuses star child existance he is a plot hole so big and so agenst what mass effect 1 and 2 stood for

to just change the narrative like that and add a new character that could not possibly exist because he would have done something back at the end of mass effect 1 is beyond ridiculous

[giveamanafish...]

Shephard was the catalyst.

[David7204]

I'm very interested in this very contradictory attitude I see many people on the BSN have concerning the Catalyst.

Plenty of people have insulted him, called him stupid, gleefully posted their fantasies of how they would kill him. And yet, simultaneously, there's no end of people who want him replaced with someone trustworthy they have a connection with, like Ashley or Kaidan or Anderson.

They simultaneously desperately want him to be right and demand him to be wrong.

Modifié par David7204, 15 juin 2013 - 08:04 .