54 réponses à ce sujet

[Mcfly616]

I came across this 3 piece interpretation of the Catalyst last week. What's nice about it, is that the author doesn't mindlessly speculate in drawing his conclusions. Like myself, the author uses in-game information to extrapolate from point to point in drawing a logical conclusion for his interpretation. Ironically, the similarities of our respective interpretations are uncanny. (barring one significant difference regarding the Crucible)

Note: the links for Part 2 and Part 3 are linked at the end of Part 1. However, Part 3 is less of an interpretation and more of a "where does Mass Effect go from here" type deal. 

Please enjoy, discuss and share your own "logical" interpretations stemming from in-game information:


www.gamefront.com/interpreting-the-catalyst-a-mass-effect-analysis-part-1/



www.gamefront.com/interpreting-the-catalyst-a-mass-effect-analysis-part-2/

Modifié par Mcfly616, 29 janvier 2014 - 03:28 .

[Arcian]

The in-game information is completely illogical so how could you possibly come to a logical conclusion by basing it on said aforementioned nonsense?

[JasonShepard]

Well, I like it.

My primary disagreement is with his assumption that the Catalyst is lying about various things (Crucible, test parameters, etc) since the moment you open the possibility that the Catalyst is lying, you open the possibility that your three options really are just three different ways to die, with no influence outside the room that you are in.

On the other hand, I agree with the rest of his analysis, and I would be happy with any of his three proposed futures being the basis of a future Mass Effect game.

[His Name was HYR!!]

I skimmed it. Not bad, for the most part. Good to see someone else actually putting thought into this.

[Artifex_Imperius]

I liked how the catalyst isnt painted just as an evil thing that needs some ass-kicking. but yeah reapers not being just the enemy that needs killing isnt in line with the comon trend of bsn renegade shep thats just out their for blood.

Modifié par Artifex_Imperius, 29 janvier 2014 - 04:21 .

[Artifex_Imperius]

StreetMagic wrote...

Artifex_Imperius wrote...

I liked how the catalyst isnt painted just as an evil things that needs some ass-kicking.

That's pretty much every game nowadays.

I long for an evil that needs some asskicking. I think I'll just take a break and watch Army of Darkness for now.

the perfect example. simple joys of being just a bad ass. the galaxy can go f*ck it self attitude < the unrealistic attitude.

as for the interpretation kinda inline with my beliefs of the catalyst. and why im at peace with ending choices.

Modifié par Artifex_Imperius, 29 janvier 2014 - 04:28 .

[Mcfly616]

I like that he brought up the Zeroth Law. The perversion of Asimov's first law of robotics. It was spot on. His interpretation puts a lot of emphasis on the fact that it's just a massive controlled experiment.


I really connect with the civilization "benchmark" he goes on about, as it's always been integral to my own interpretation of the ending.

[CronoDragoon]

JasonShepard wrote...

Well, I like it.

My primary disagreement is with his assumption that the Catalyst is lying about various things (Crucible, test parameters, etc) since the moment you open the possibility that the Catalyst is lying, you open the possibility that your three options really are just three different ways to die, with no influence outside the room that you are in.

On the other hand, I agree with the rest of his analysis, and I would be happy with any of his three proposed futures being the basis of a future Mass Effect game.

There's a more specific issue here, I think.

It's clear why he assumes the Catalyst is lying about the Crucible's role in the cycles: the game is unable to account for 1) the Catalyst not knowing the Crucible plans still existed while 2) indoctrinating and controlling the splinter factions that wanted to use the Crucible to control the Reapers. If the Reapers can control TIM's mind, they know the Crucible is being built. The assumption that the Catalyst is lying about his knowledge of the Crucible's existence is a way to solve this discrepancy.

But it creates other discrepancies that are just as big: if the Catalyst is letting organics build the Crucible in search of a better solution, then why are the Reapers trying to destroy it in the battle for Earth?

I'm more willing to let the plot hole with the splinter factions stand and simply assume that it's only after the Crucible docks that the Catalyst realizes he is going to lose: either in this cycle or the next. The history of the cycles has shown a pattern of organics becoming progressively more competent at overcoming the cycles, and so he decides a new solution is needed, and that for some reason or another Shepard needs to be the one to pick it.

Anyway, I just read Part 1, so maybe Part 2 has a more detailed analysis of the Catalyst-Crucible relationship.

[Mcfly616]

CronoDragoon wrote...


Anyway, I just read Part 1, so maybe Part 2 has a more detailed analysis of the Catalyst-Crucible relationship.

Read Part 2. It should clear up the issues you listed.


They continue to fight and try to destroy the Crucible because it needs to be docked in order for us to reach the benchmark.

Modifié par Mcfly616, 29 janvier 2014 - 04:48 .

[GimmeDaGun]

Arcian wrote...

The in-game information is completely illogical so how could you possibly come to a logical conclusion by basing it on said aforementioned nonsense?

Well...errr... by using my brain and interpreting the things I see, hear and read in the game? Somehow it worked for me... on top of that, it worked for me even with the quite lacking original ending too. So, yeah... 

[Mcfly616]

GimmeDaGun wrote...

Arcian wrote...

The in-game information is completely illogical so how could you possibly come to a logical conclusion by basing it on said aforementioned nonsense?

Well...errr... by using my brain and interpreting the things I see, hear and read in the game? Somehow it worked for me... on top of that, it worked for me even with the quite lacking original ending too. So, yeah... 

Meh...the butthurt is strong with that one. It's hard to understand logic when your head's buried in the sand. Don't even feed him.

[His Name was HYR!!]

CronoDragoon wrote...

There's a more specific issue here, I think.

It's clear why he assumes the Catalyst is lying about the Crucible's role in the cycles: the game is unable to account for 1) the Catalyst not knowing the Crucible plans still existed while 2) indoctrinating and controlling the splinter factions that wanted to use the Crucible to control the Reapers. If the Reapers can control TIM's mind, they know the Crucible is being built. The assumption that the Catalyst is lying about his knowledge of the Crucible's existence is a way to solve this discrepancy.

I think the Catalyst was referring to the fall of the Protheans' cycle as the "eradication" of the Crucible -- believing that the concept of the weapon died along with them. Of course, the Reapers later learn of its existence in this cycle, but that does not contradict the Catalyst initially believing that those plans were gone.

But it creates other discrepancies that are just as big: if the Catalyst is letting organics build the Crucible in search of a better solution, then why are the Reapers trying to destroy it in the battle for Earth?

The Catalyst/Reapers never "let" organics build the Crucible. Its construction clearly took it/them by surprise.

[JasonShepard]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

I think the Catalyst was referring to the fall of the Protheans' cycle as the "eradication" of the Crucible -- believing that the concept of the weapon died along with them. Of course, the Reapers later learn of its existence in this cycle, but that does not contradict the Catalyst initially believing that those plans were gone.

Yeah, that's how I take the "We believed the concept had been eradicated" line. They weren't aware that the plans had survived the Protheans.

I also assume that the Crucible has only been around for the last few cycles - it makes more sense than the plans managing to consistently survive hundreds of galactic resets, especially when information as simple as: "The Citadel. IT'S A TRAP!" doesn't survive. The Catalyst does say something like "We first noticed it several cycles ago", implying that it hasn't been around for aeons.

CronoDragoon wrote...

If the Reapers can control TIM's mind, they know the Crucible is being built.

That's debatable.

Indoctrination may not be something that the Reapers do 'actively'. Heck, even a dead Reaper is passively indoctrinating everyone on board in ME2.

It's possible  that TIM's indoctrination led him to the desire to use the Crucible for Control even without the Reapers being actively aware of the Crucible's continued existence. After all, you can see shades of TIM's desire for Control in ME2, before anyone was aware that the Crucible plans still existed. (It's also debatable when exactly TIM became fully indoctrinated - I tend to believe that he was mostly still himself until quite late in ME3.)

Modifié par JasonShepard, 29 janvier 2014 - 05:12 .

[CronoDragoon]

Finished part 2. I like this interpretation - especially how it recasts the meaning behind the naming of "the Crucible" - but it has weak spots. For one, saying that the Catalyst asserting Destroy will lead to chaos again is a "psychological" trick/challenge is ascribing remarkably human motivation to something that is ostensibly an evolved A.I. I suppose it would benefit this theory to somehow work in the dreams as psychological challenges by the Catalyst as well, borrowing certain bits of IT to strengthen the assertion that the Catalyst functions highly at a psychological level. Then again, indoctrination shows this already to be true, so perhaps it's not an issue.

ReddofNonnac brings up a strong objection in the comments though:

"Uh question, if as you assert in your article “Thus the Catalyst would establish the benchmark I mentioned earlier, as a way of testing civilizations and driving them to improve. The benchmark is a standard of cooperation, in a sense. To reach that benchmark, a civilization would have to be able to build the Crucible and then use it with the Citadel,” Why is it Vigil stated they flood through the Citadel at the start of every harvest and then shut down the relay network so only they can use it?

Vigil also states it was the Prothean scientists who stopped the signal from reaching the Keepers which in reality broke the cycle. So your idea that “The standard we met required cooperation without subjugation (which is why the Protheans couldn’t do it,” is not really true as Shepard and her team only prevented Saren from restarting the cycle. The Protheans gave this cycle a chance. So without the Protheans this cycle would not have had the chance and would have been overrun just like the Protheans."

If the purpose of the cycles is to establish a benchmark for civilizations to surpass, then this cycle should have been too tainted from the start to properly analyze. It's only because of the Protheans disrupting the Keeper signal that the Reapers couldn't do their usual "take the Citadel and shut down the network" deal.

[Astartes Marine]

Artifex_Imperius wrote...
I liked how the catalyst isnt painted just as an evil thing that needs some ass-kicking. but yeah reapers not being just the enemy that needs killing isnt in line with the comon trend of bsn renegade shep thats just out their for blood.

Oh I like how you say that as if only renegade Sheps want their extermination.

I'm more of a paragon with occasional renegade moments (when I deem necessary like ME2's shoving the guy out the window or lighting the Krogan on fire) and I made peace with the Quarians/Geth, cured the Genophage etc etc.  I will not allow the continued existence to an enemy of life itself unless it's solidly on the side of life without any doubts as to loyalty. 
They serve the galaxy with a new collar and get destroyed once the post-conflict reconstruction efforts are completed or get crushed into dust so the galaxy can build it's own future without the looming ghost of the Old Machines, no second chances.  Too dangerous and volatile to be left to their own devices.



ANYWAYS...the initial conclusion I came to upon seeing the Catalyst for the first time after the "wtf?" moment and all was that if I cut off the head of the snake then the body would die.
It did say it controlled the Reapers, admitted to being the very example of problem it was created to stop (synthetics killing their creators), and was the cause of over a billion years' worth of death and destruction.  It was very clear to me.  My conclusion : Threat must be eliminated to ensure survival of current cycle.  Ending either blue/red.  Green is irrelevant.


I'll have to read these links in greater detail though later on, the information sounds like an interesting take on it. 

Modifié par Astartes Marine, 29 janvier 2014 - 05:18 .

[CronoDragoon]

JasonShepard wrote...
That's debatable.

In order for it to be debatable we'd need to completely discredit Drew K's books, in particular Retribution, which details quite clearly the ability for the Reapers to search through the memories of indoctrinated servants, in particular Paul Grayson.

HYR 2.0 wrote...
The Catalyst/Reapers never "let" organics build the Crucible. Its construction clearly took it/them by surprise.

"Let" is not the right word, but going by this theory it is the Catalyst's intent for organics to build the Crucible.

In any case he does answer my objection with his benchmark theory, but I'm not sure this theory can account for his line "clearly organics are more resourceful than we realized" without interpretating it as another lie. Claiming that the Catalyst sets up an experiment designed to produce something and then asserting that he never believed it possible for that something to be produced rings unlikely to me.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 29 janvier 2014 - 05:23 .

[Mcfly616]

StreetMagic wrote...

Every one of the options has benefits and downsides. Pick your poison. Other than that, there isn't much to talk about unless they move the series forward. Conclusions don't mean much without experiencing the results.

I don't think we need to move the series forward. I think we just need to move on from the Shepard/Reaper Narrative. I'd like to keep the post ME3 universe to the imagination for now.


As we all know, Shepard and crew are pretty much the only people aware of an imminent Reaper Invasion up until their arrival. They can set the next game during the events of ME1 and ME2 without having anything to do with Shepard or the Reapers. Even better, they can do a game before the Shepard Trilogy (preferably in the time period between the end of First Contact War and the beginning of ME1). 

To reiterate an example I used yesterday, Alastair Reynolds created a series of books known as the Revelation Space series. Within this series he has the "Inhibitor Trilogy" (Revelation Space, Redemption Ark, Absolution Gap). The Inhibitors are actually the main inspiration for the Reapers (not their looks....pretty much everything else). The Trilogy follows a group of people who discover that the Fermi Paradox is due to systematic extermination events performed by dormant machines of ancient origin.

Now, Reynolds also has 2 standalone novels and a collection of short stories set within the same universe, yet they have no narrative connection. He doesn't consider them to be prequels and sequels. They are their own stories, yet set within his established fictional universe. Just because the Trilogy depicts the beginning and end of the fight against the Inhibitors, doesn't mean there was never a great adventure prior to or during those events.

Bioware doesn't need to move time forward in the next game because the current MEU timeline is still overflowing with potential.

[MyChemicalBromance]

Well, at least it's thorough, but I find myself having trouble accepting the lynchpins of his arguments as truth, mainly because his reasoning is a bit spotty.

He says the Catalyst is lying because it said it didn't know about the Crucible (when those it had indoctrinated clearly did). That said, the Catalyst only says that it thought the concept had been irradicated. The statements it makes don't imply that it didn't know about the Crucible until the battle for Earth, just that it thought the design had been wiped out before this cycle. Now it still clearly should have known about the Crucible being built in this cycle nearly as long as we did, and there are still a lot of questions about why it didn't try to destroy it (since it seems nearly impossible for it to have not known where it was), but that statement itself doesn't add anything to the discussion.

And also, the idea that the Protheans weren't succesful because they didn't cooperate with other species, and that whole aspect of the author's theory on the "test", seems a little this-cycle-centric. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't think the Protheans found the Crucible plans until a long time after they were invaded, and they sufferred a far worse initial invasion than we did. On top of that, if Illos was any indication, the Protheans were far more technologically advanced than we were, which is ultimately the true metric deciding the Crucible's effectiveness, not how much everyone loves each other.


The "test" argument really only makes sense if the Catalyst controls the time at which the Crucible plans are introduced, and there are just too many variables and apparent contradictions for me to buy that. The Crucible plans came from a Prothean data-center in the Sol cluster. Given the events that took place in ME1, it's highly possible that Sovereign attempted to open the Citadel remotely before humans ever left their home system.


To clarify my statement about variables and the test only making sense if the Catalyst controlled the introduction of the plans, what if a single species found the plans for the Crucible, as well as the reasoning, at the beginning of the 50,000 year cycle? We built the Crucible in roughly 6 months, and that was after only 2000 years of advancement past what was required to access the relay network (Asari). I give the Catalyst more credit than most, but even I think this is attributing a level of omnipotence to it that we have little reason to assume it has.

I may re-read it later to see if he addresses any of these concerns.

[Astartes Marine]

Just finished part 2...and the Babylon 5 comparisons come to mind once more (this series is just prime for those isn't it?)

The author's idea reminds me of the Shadows' philosophy of every thousand years or so they "kick over the anthill" and cause a conflict, the survivors of said conflict become stronger through the chaos and hardship and later they start it again. Kick over an anthill and the ants will rebuild stronger and stronger each time.

This is an interesting take on the Catalyst I must say, and at times I myself have wondered if that really was the case, that the harvests were really an experiment to see if mutual coexistence was actually possible.

The word "crucible" is often applied in terms of a difficult test or trial after all...hmm...

[Mcfly616]

Well, I see a lot of well worded responses and lengthy posts. I was hoping this article would spark this type of discussion. Whether you agree with the interpretation, some of it or none at all, it's still a thorough article that is quite thought-provoking.

[Arcian]

Mcfly616 wrote...

GimmeDaGun wrote...

Arcian wrote...

The in-game information is completely illogical so how could you possibly come to a logical conclusion by basing it on said aforementioned nonsense?

Well...errr... by using my brain and interpreting the things I see, hear and read in the game? Somehow it worked for me... on top of that, it worked for me even with the quite lacking original ending too. So, yeah... 

Meh...the butthurt is strong with that one. It's hard to understand logic when your head's buried in the sand. Don't even feed him.

Logic is not subjective. If you thought the Catalyst made sense, that just means you were wrong.