981 réponses à ce sujet

[SwobyJ]

If we take the literal information we're given...

 

Catalyst is actually different from the Geth here.

 

Geth gather all of their information and network in hubs to make a decision for all. The hubs would facilitate collective intelligence, but the consensus is the realm in which their decisions are made. Many programs, not one uber one.

 

The Reapers, on the other hand, use a single guiding intelligence to decide. It takes in all information from the Reapers, but then controls the Reapers based on the information it is given.

 

This makes Reapers, in this respect, like 'brutal geth'. No democracy here. The Reapers act independently otherwise, but when the Intelligence makes an order, that order comes from their KING. It is unknown whether the Reapers can resist the control of the Intelligence, but it seems that they do what it says regardless. (Unless/until we're given an example of a Reaper rebelling)

It may even be that the Reapers are constructed in a way that they would almost never, ever, resist the orders of the Intelligence. I have my thoughts on how this would be so, but I'll keep that to myself here.

 

The geth have enough autonomy that if enough of them disagree, they can break apart. This was the Heretic Geth scenario. They don't have a singular guiding intelligence. They are of pluralism, and that pluralism ultimately helped them in coming into alliance with the organics if you pick Geth or Peace.

 

~~

 

Anyway, the Intelligence acts as not as the consensus, but as the collective. Nearly pure synthetic POV, without even the geth want to connect and be in peace with the quarians.

The Reapers, and therefore the Intelligence, want to force a connection, not to exist in peace. It's only through Shepard's/Crucible's intervention, that the harvest is interrupted and peaceful outcomes become possible.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

1) They can believe that they are more independent than they are.

2) They can actually be independent and run on consensus, therefore the Catalyst "controls" them.

 

Why would they believe they're more independent when they're not? If they were on a consensus, how would they be independent? How does the Catalyst control their consensus?

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Wouldn't the control undermine the consensus?

 

It would. It's a logic bomb that can really only be explained by one thing: lore contradiction. Which I blame on writers not doing their homework. Which is unacceptable, especially considering it's their own work they're contradicting.

[txgoldrush]

Why would they believe they're more independent when they're not? If they were on a consensus, how would they be independent? How does the Catalyst control their consensus?

First question, because they don't know it. Second question, because they have their own thoughts. Third question, by making things think that they are in control.

[KaiserShep]

That reminds me. The reaper destroyer on Rannoch tells Shepard that Harbinger speaks of him/her. What the frak would they talk about?

"That Shepard really chaps my ass."

"Catalystdammit, this is known..."

[SwobyJ]

Why would they believe they're more independent when they're not? If they were on a consensus, how would they be independent? How does the Catalyst control their consensus?

 

It would be a loop.

 

Intelligence is Reapers. Reapers are Intelligence.

 

Information is fed back and forth. What the Intelligence decides, comes from what the Reapers believe. What the Reapers believe, comes from what the Intelligence orders.

 

It's the pinnacle of isolated yes-manship. lol

 

As such, and with no real honest connection to organics, Reapers are abominations that pretend to be our angels/gods/protectors, when really are stuck in feedback loop about their own importance. Importance that has a legit enough beginning (if we forget about writing critiques and just look in-lore), but requires the Reapers' end. In some way or another.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

First question, because they don't know it. Second question, because they have their own thoughts. Third question, by making things think that they are in control.

 

How would they not know it? If they have their own thoughts, how does that tie in to the collective for the Catalyst? How does that make them a Consensus if they're a collective without control or independence? You need independence to have a consensus. 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

It would be a loop.

 

Intelligence is Reapers. Reapers are Intelligence.

 

Information is fed back and forth. What the Intelligence decides, comes from what the Reapers believe. What the Reapers believe, comes from what the Intelligence orders.

 

It's the pinnacle of isolated yes-manship. lol

 

As such, and with no real honest connection to organics, Reapers are abominations that pretend to be our angels/gods/protectors, when really are stuck in feedback loop about their own importance. Importance that has a legit enough beginning (if we forget about writing critiques and just look in-lore), but requires the Reapers' end. In some way or another.

 

It's a logic bomb. It shows how screwy the Reapers are with their programming. It shows how removed their ideal goal is from their actions. There is no importance or relevance to be afforded to their problem. It's flawed. 

 

That's the closest I'm personally going to come to acknowledging the concept given in ME3. It exists for them due to a logical error. 

[SwobyJ]

That reminds me. The reaper destroyer on Rannoch tells Shepard that Harbinger speaks of him/her. What the frak would they talk about?

"That Shepard really chaps my ass."

"Catalystdammit, this is known..."

 

Look at all of Harbinger's lines in the series.

 

He wants to use Shepard for something. He sees Shepard's resistance, declares it useless, harmful, ignorant, arrogant, etc - but also views Shepard more and more as part of a destiny. Presumably, that destiny would involve becoming part of a Reaper to some small to huge extent, or at least as an Indoctrinated agent (I mean, what else would it be?).

 

So that's what he'd be talking about. How Shepard just doesn't understand, but how they'll get Shepard and make him see things how they do...

[txgoldrush]

It would. It's a logic bomb that can really only be explained by one thing: lore contradiction. Which I blame on writers not doing their homework. Which is unacceptable, especially considering it's their own work they're contradicting.

Wrong. Its because the writers of the first game may have written a logic flaw. Please tell me this. If Sovereign is right, and they are all independent, why are they all a threat? Why is their no rebel Reapers?  This does not make sense. So what do we do. We retcon it the best way possible and make Sovereign dubious at best, and then, make him incorrect and mocked. That's how to properly retcon. And really, it makes sense...indoctrinated things still think that they are in control.

 

here is a thing; RETCONS ARE NOT ALWAYS BAD!!!!!!! they can actually, if done well, let the work make more sense.

 

The Bioshock series has the same deal, Ken Levine left a massive plot hole in the first game, where if the timing of events is correct, there would be no logical way a mature Protector Program would exist. What does Bioshock 2's writers do, recton it, moving Suchong's death back before the war starting so a more mature Protector Program can be written in. And really do not blame Jordan Thomas for this retcon, that fault lies with Levine. And his Burial At Sea explanation, that tries to retcon Bioshock 2 regarding Suchong, still doesn't make sense. A mature Protector Program could never have existed if Suchong could not bond the Daddies to their Sisters until after the collapse of Rapture, then being killed by himself when he accidently does.

[SwobyJ]

It's a logic bomb. It shows how screwy the Reapers are with their programming. It shows how removed their ideal goal is from their actions. There is no importance or relevance to be afforded to their problem. It's flawed. 

 

That's the closest I'm personally going to come to acknowledging the concept given in ME3. It exists for them due to a logical error. 

 

It IS a logical error.

 

It's a solution that, for all we know, may have worked out well enough for the Leviathans' cycle. Maybe. All we have are their and Leviathans' views on the matter, if anything...

 

...but it's absolute BS for a long time, and especially now. They hold their grip on the galaxy so tight that it barely allows any success between organics and synthetics to even occur. It's utterly mathematical, without any creative or especially emotional insight.

 

The Reapers the the enemy. That has never changed. Just with Synthesis, we at least see what looks like the disregard of 'past conflicts' and an embrace of utilizing a connection with the Reapers for good, not evil.

[SwobyJ]

First question, because they don't know it. Second question, because they have their own thoughts. Third question, by making things think that they are in control.

 

I personally think the Reapers know exactly what controls them. And as long as that controller is made from their collective intelligence, then 'whatever'. In fact, they may give the Intelligence their utmost respect. But that part is an outright guess.

 

 

 

EDIT: BTW this doesn't make them good, or 'truly' independent (as in 'free'). They are their own agents, more than any organic thrall is, but as long as they are shacked up to the Intelligence, they will not be fully 'free'.

I consider a semi parallel to the Thorian (except in the organic dominating/incorporating sense, instead of synthetic/rewriting indoctrinating). As long as the Thorian is up, the thralls are screwed.

 

But eliminate the Thorian from the equation... well, that's when things start to get interesting.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Wrong. Its because the writers of the first game may have written a logic flaw. Please tell me this. If Sovereign is right, and they are all independent, why are they all a threat? Why is their no rebel Reapers?  This does not make sense. So what do we do. We retcon it the best way possible and make Sovereign dubious at best, and then, make him incorrect and mocked. That's how to properly retcon. And really, it makes sense...indoctrinated things still think that they are in control.

 

here is a thing; RETCONS ARE NOT ALWAYS BAD!!!!!!! they can actually, if done well, let the work make more sense.

 

The Bioshock series has the same deal, Ken Levine left a massive plot hole in the first game, where if the timing of events is correct, there would be no logical way a mature Protector Program would exist. What does Bioshock 2's writers do, recton it, moving Suchong's death back before the war starting so a more mature Protector Program can be written in. And really do not blame Jordan Thomas for this retcon, that fault lies with Levine. And his Burial At Sea explanation, that tries to retcon Bioshock 2 regarding Suchong, still doesn't make sense. A mature Protector Program could never have existed if Suchong could not bond the Daddies to their Sisters until after the collapse of Rapture, then being killed by himself when he accidently does.

 

So, due to a contradiction in the series between two installments (several of who were the same writers in both games), it's the people who made the first game that had the contradiction? I'm surprised I got you to admit that there was a flaw in Mass Effect, let alone one with this big of an ending breaking implication.

 

This is a red herring: You're taking the argument into another argument. Let's get back to the first one: You said the Reapers are a consensus. You're saying that they aren't independent. To be a consensus, they must be independent. You're saying that the Catalyst said that they were a consensus. This is a logical failure on your part. Independence does not equal rebellion as well. Otherwise, going by your logic (which I've deconstructed), the very act of consensus would be one of rebellion against the Catalyst's control. You said the Reapers are a consensus. You said they don't have independence. Which is it?

 

Next, I'm going to address some of the next point: Why does a Reaper need to be indoctrinated? Where are you getting the idea that it is indoctrinated? I never made these statements or an argument as such, but now I'm interested in your claim. 

 

My personal opinion? No retcon was needed. The work made plenty enough sense prior to the retcon (which was unnecessary and unwelcome). The retcon took away the logic of the narrative. It became separate works with different ideas underlying different concepts to meet inconsistent themes that came together in a poor execution that belonged in another universe that wasn't Mass Effect.

 

Why are you bringing up Bioshock? Who said anything about Bioshock?

[SwobyJ]

The Reapers are agents of the Intelligence's will.

 

Like Spectres (in relation to the Council) + Geth stuff (networking, collective/consensus) + Krogan single mindedness (____ at all costs, brutality)

 

It's like these subjects all relate to each other...

[txgoldrush]

So, due to a contradiction in the series between two installments (several of who were the same writers in both games), it's the people who made the first game that had the contradiction? I'm surprised I got you to admit that there was a flaw in Mass Effect, let alone one with this big of an ending breaking implication.

 

This is a red herring: You're taking the argument into another argument. Let's get back to the first one: You said the Reapers are a consensus. You're saying that they aren't independent. To be a consensus, they must be independent. You're saying that the Catalyst said that they were a consensus. This is a logical failure on your part. Independence does not equal rebellion as well. Otherwise, going by your logic (which I've deconstructed), the very act of consensus would be one of rebellion against the Catalyst's control. You said the Reapers are a consensus. You said they don't have independence. Which is it?

 

Next, I'm going to address some of the next point: Why does a Reaper need to be indoctrinated? Where are you getting the idea that it is indoctrinated? I never made these statements or an argument as such, but now I'm interested in your claim. 

 

My personal opinion? No retcon was needed. The work made plenty enough sense prior to the retcon (which was unnecessary and unwelcome). The retcon took away the logic of the narrative. It became separate works with different ideas underlying different concepts to meet inconsistent themes that came together in a poor execution that belonged in another universe that wasn't Mass Effect.

 

Why are you bringing up Bioshock? Who said anything about Bioshock?

No, the retcon makes the work better.

 

It took what was illogical, Sovereigns notion that the Reapers are all independent, and removed it. Not only that, made the Reapers being unknowable and beyond comprehension his red herring.

 

And who said a consensus has have those that are independent? Why can't it actually be forced? Coerced or controlled? Many dictators attempt to control consensus to make them look popular. You are making a false argument that consensus requires independence. It doesn't.

 

And complete independence would require the freedom for anything to happen. There is no good chance that all Reapers would agree that the cycle is correct if they were independent. hell, Shepard and crew were theorizing that Leviathan was a rebel Reaper at one point!!!

 

And making the Catalyst a consensus, a controlled consensus with the Reapers not knowing that they are being controlled, is one way to reconcile Sovereign with the Catalyst.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

No, the retcon makes the work better.

 

It took what was illogical, Sovereigns notion that the Reapers are all independent, and removed it. Not only that, made the Reapers being unknowable and beyond comprehension his red herring.

 

And who said a consensus has have those that are independent? Why can't it actually be forced? Coerced or controlled? Many dictators attempt to control consensus to make them look popular. You are making a false argument that consensus requires independence. It doesn't.

 

And complete independence would require the freedom for anything to happen. There is no good chance that all Reapers would agree that the cycle is correct if they were independent.

 

And making the Catalyst a consensus, a controlled consensus with the Reapers not knowing that they are being controlled, is one way to reconcile Sovereign with the Catalyst.

 

I disagree: I feel that the retcon killed the credibility and believable credence of the work and the writers.

 

How is the notion of the Reapers being independent illogical? Being independent does not mean that you can't come to the same conclusion or belief. 

 

Because a consensus is a conclusion of general agreement reached by a group. You can't force or control an agreement lest it not be called a consensus in the first place. A coerced or controlled consensus isn't a consensus. You're making the mistake of believing that a dictatorial-led consensus is a real consensus at all. How would it be a general agreement if the participants are being controlled without their will (knowing or unknowing)? It's not a consensus, it's a dictator forcing his own conclusion on a group, making them agree via coercion, manipulation, or intimidation, and calling it a consensus for his own purposes.

 

How do you know that? What proof or evidence do you have? This is becoming a semantic debate on wordplay.

 

That's not a consensus, that's the Catalyst controlling the Reapers and functioning as their collective figure. It's an invalid reconciliation. 

[txgoldrush]

I disagree: I feel that the retcon killed the credibility and believable credence of the work and the writers.

 

How is the notion of the Reapers being independent illogical? Being independent does not mean that you can't come to the same conclusion or belief. 

 

Because a consensus is a conclusion of general agreement reached by a group. You can't force or control an agreement lest it not be called a consensus in the first place. A coerced or controlled consensus isn't a consensus. You're making the mistake of believing that a dictatorial-led consensus is a real consensus at all. How would it be a general agreement if the participants are being controlled without their will (knowing or unknowing)? It's not a consensus, it's a dictator forcing his own conclusion on a group, making them agree via coercion, manipulation, or intimidation, and calling it a consensus for his own purposes.

 

How do you know that? What proof or evidence do you have? This is becoming a semantic debate on wordplay.

 

That's not a consensus, that's the Catalyst controlling the Reapers and functioning as their collective figure. It's an invalid reconciliation. 

No, the retcon works because the sources of the information being retconned can be easily made unreliable because they are either misinformed, which ME3 implies that Prothean VIs can be, or flat out wrong, like ME3 suggests Sovereign is, with Shepard even mocking one of his assertions that the Reapers have no beginning or end. So really, is it logical for the Reapers to NOT have a beginning? Its an easy retcon because Sovereign was so completely full of himself.

 

No, a consensus can be controlled or coerced, it does not require independent thought. By nature, most consensuses have powerful factions that seek to control or influence weaker aspects of the consensus to see their side of things. Doesn't mean that the choice isn't made when one is forced to do so. Nevermind an in universe example with the heretic geth and Shepards could be response.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Why don't you blame ME1 for this as well?

 

The Battle of the Citadel when Sovereign and the Geth go through the relay all at once.

 

If you believe ME3's lore to be correct then the blame lies with ME1. If you believe ME1's lore to be correct, then the blame lies with ME3. This is a case of finger pointing.

 

You want to lay the blame in ME1, fine. That's where the rules for the series were set. If you change the rules later, it's called a retcon. It's done most commonly in comic books, and sometimes in pulp fiction usually for the purpose of bringing back a dead character. The Catalyst in the EC retconned the story of the reapers via rewrite to stir interest in the DLC Leviathan which took up a portion of the 2 GB of the EC. 

 

You know you can blame ME1 for the problems in ME3. Blame ME2 for them as well. That's why Casey Hudson said ME3 is a great place to start. It was like forget what happened in ME1 and ME2. Just play this one with an internet connection and play a bunch of mult-player and you'll be fine. This way, you won't notice all the lore errors, or rather alterations to the lore we made. 

 

If you believe the Catalyst when he says "I am the collective consciousness of all Reapers," then he also was part of Sovereign, and Sovereign was part of him. How could Sovereign be unaware of the Catalyst in that case? "We are each a nation, independent and free of all weakness." Well I guess not. Wow, Sovereign was indoctrinated. All the reapers are indoctrinated. They are mindless killing machines. Yet Legion describes Sovereign's mind in ME2. Did Legion actually interface with the Catalyst? Well we don't know because it wasn't stated that way. It was stated that Legion interfaced with Nazara.

 

So if Sovereign is wrong, and they aren't each a nation and independent, then they are like intelligent husks controlled like puppets by the Catalyst. Marmalade Theory is then correct -- you don't know the author and there isn't time to explain.

 

I think the best way to go through the series is just to forget everything you learn from one game to the next. And drink a lot while you're playing.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

No, the retcon works because the sources of the information being retconned can be easily made unreliable because they are either misinformed, which ME3 implies that Prothean VIs can be, or flat out wrong, like ME3 suggests Sovereign is, with Shepard even mocking one of his assertions that the Reapers have no beginning or end. So really, is it logical for the Reapers to NOT have a beginning? Its an easy retcon because Sovereign was so completely full of himself.

 

No, a consensus can be controlled or coerced, it does not require independent thought. By nature, most consensuses have powerful factions that seek to control or influence weaker aspects of the consensus to see their side of things. Doesn't mean that the choice isn't made when one is forced to do so. Nevermind an in universe example with the heretic geth and Shepards could be response.

 

I never saw where ME3 suggested that any of the Prothean VI's or Sovereign was wrong. At least until the Catalyst came into play. Which I hold to be the Catalysts fault. Of course, if you're changing the context of statements made by the Reapers to mean what you want them to mean for your argument, go ahead and do so. I just won't bite. I won't acknowledge your argument, since it isn't one I can win when you're changing things to mean what you want them too. I'll just let you drink your kool-aid and get back to what I was doing: Criticizing BW for bad writing. That said, Sovereign was full of himself, yeah. Does that mean he had to be entirely BS'ing to say that everything he said was an empty hack? It was pretty obvious from the get-go that the Reapers had to have a beginning and end. If they didn't, it wouldn't be much of a compelling plot. Hell, it struggled with it enough, seeing as how poorly the Reapers were written to begin with.

 

That's not how a consensus works lad: among other things, I'm a political scientist. I know you're one of those guys that has an issue with being wrong, but bear with me here. A consensus is, by its definition, a general agreement among equal and independent entities. The aspect you're stating about stronger and weaker forces is called argument. It's called politics. A forced choice, particularly one where a particular outcome is being forced or railed, isn't an exercise in free will or independence. It's not a consensus then by the textbook definition. 

[AlanC9]

Why would they believe they're more independent when they're not?

If you were ever going to ask that question, Mass Effect is not the series to ask it about. The series is full of beings who are controlled and don't know it.

[SwobyJ]

Nazara (Guardian, Watcher, Consecrated) is Sovereign (King, Supreme) is the Intelligence (AI, 'Geth Ship') is the Catalyst (part of Citadel).

 

He is Sovereign, and this station is his. The Citadel is his home.

 

("Reaper? A label given by the Prothians to give voice to their extinction.")

 

The Prothians boobytrapped his home while he was out in the Reaper-Car. He then settles in his home while his Reaper-Car gets trashed, and watches how the organics handle his experiment. He is impressed by Shepard (in Saren's words) and by humanity, and gives them a remote shot to 'find another way'. While he was originally just going to harvest Shepard/Humanity in a Reaper to join the horde in finding a solution, the Crucible changes him...

 

That's my running headcanon and you can't stop me!

 

 

But yes, to me, seeing Sovvy and Catalyst as one in the same (just the latter putting on a more diplomatic tone to everything), works just fine.

 

 

EDIT: Heck ,you can even interpret the Virmire conversation as purely dumb 'trashtalking' (so to speak) between Shepard and Sovereign, both saying useless things. I don't, but you can still do that, especially considering the 'no beginning and no end' part.

[AlanC9]

That said, Sovereign was full of himself, yeah. Does that mean he had to be entirely BS'ing to say that everything he said was an empty hack? It was pretty obvious from the get-go that the Reapers had to have a beginning and end. If they didn't, it wouldn't be much of a compelling plot. Hell, it struggled with it enough, seeing as how poorly the Reapers were written to begin with.

Well, that's the thing. Since some of what Sovereign said simply was b.s., and none of it made much sense, what's wrong, what's un-Mass Effect, about having it all turn out to be the ravings of yet another indoctrinated madman?

[txgoldrush]

If you believe ME3's lore to be correct then the blame lies with ME1. If you believe ME1's lore to be correct, then the blame lies with ME3. This is a case of finger pointing.

 

You want to lay the blame in ME1, fine. That's where the rules for the series were set. If you change the rules later, it's called a retcon. It's done most commonly in comic books, and sometimes in pulp fiction usually for the purpose of bringing back a dead character. The Catalyst in the EC retconned the story of the reapers via rewrite to stir interest in the DLC Leviathan which took up a portion of the 2 GB of the EC. 

 

You know you can blame ME1 for the problems in ME3. Blame ME2 for them as well. That's why Casey Hudson said ME3 is a great place to start. It was like forget what happened in ME1 and ME2. Just play this one with an internet connection and play a bunch of mult-player and you'll be fine. This way, you won't notice all the lore errors, or rather alterations to the lore we made. 

 

If you believe the Catalyst when he says "I am the collective consciousness of all Reapers," then he also was part of Sovereign, and Sovereign was part of him. How could Sovereign be unaware of the Catalyst in that case? "We are each a nation, independent and free of all weakness." Well I guess not. Wow, Sovereign was indoctrinated. All the reapers are indoctrinated. They are mindless killing machines. Yet Legion describes Sovereign's mind in ME2. Did Legion actually interface with the Catalyst? Well we don't know because it wasn't stated that way. It was stated that Legion interfaced with Nazara.

 

So if Sovereign is wrong, and they aren't each a nation and independent, then they are like intelligent husks controlled like puppets by the Catalyst. Marmalade Theory is then correct -- you don't know the author and there isn't time to explain.

 

I think the best way to go through the series is just to forget everything you learn from one game to the next. And drink a lot while you're playing.

You don't get it.

 

When you have characters set the rules of the lore, they can organically be contradicted and retconned because characters by nature, can be dishonest or not know everything, or be misinformed. Once again, I am telling you this. Its not changing the rules because really what characters know and tell you do not necessarily set the rules. Even then ME3 adds rules...that sources can be wrong.

 

How is the Catalyst part of Sovereign? please explain. Sovereign is part of the collective, the collective is not part of Sovereign. It can easily be that Sovereign thought he was independent, but is unknowingly part of the catalyst. This is a valid reconciliation. All Legion did was compare how the Geth need eachother to Sovereign's "independence", because Geth cannot act on their own like Reapers can...that's all legion was saying.

 

And really, this retcon doesn't even violate canon, but "fanon"....what you think the lore should be. get over it.

[txgoldrush]

If you were ever going to ask that question, Mass Effect is not the series to ask it about. The series is full of beings who are controlled and don't know it.

Precisely, many indoctrinated agents do not believe they are being controlled, so why should Sovereign be any different?

 

Saren, Kenson, and TIM did not believe they were being controlled for the most part.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

If you believe ME3's lore to be correct then the blame lies with ME1. If you believe ME1's lore to be correct, then the blame lies with ME3. This is a case of finger pointing.

 

You want to lay the blame in ME1, fine. That's where the rules for the series were set. If you change the rules later, it's called a retcon. It's done most commonly in comic books, and sometimes in pulp fiction usually for the purpose of bringing back a dead character. The Catalyst in the EC retconned the story of the reapers via rewrite to stir interest in the DLC Leviathan which took up a portion of the 2 GB of the EC. 

 

You know you can blame ME1 for the problems in ME3. Blame ME2 for them as well. That's why Casey Hudson said ME3 is a great place to start. It was like forget what happened in ME1 and ME2. Just play this one with an internet connection and play a bunch of mult-player and you'll be fine. This way, you won't notice all the lore errors, or rather alterations to the lore we made. 

 

If you believe the Catalyst when he says "I am the collective consciousness of all Reapers," then he also was part of Sovereign, and Sovereign was part of him. How could Sovereign be unaware of the Catalyst in that case? "We are each a nation, independent and free of all weakness." Well I guess not. Wow, Sovereign was indoctrinated. All the reapers are indoctrinated. They are mindless killing machines. Yet Legion describes Sovereign's mind in ME2. Did Legion actually interface with the Catalyst? Well we don't know because it wasn't stated that way. It was stated that Legion interfaced with Nazara.

 

So if Sovereign is wrong, and they aren't each a nation and independent, then they are like intelligent husks controlled like puppets by the Catalyst. Marmalade Theory is then correct -- you don't know the author and there isn't time to explain.

 

I think the best way to go through the series is just to forget everything you learn from one game to the next. And drink a lot while you're playing.

 

You don't get it.

 

When you have characters set the rules of the lore, they can organically be contradicted and retconned because characters by nature, can be dishonest or not know everything, or be misinformed. Once again, I am telling you this. Its not changing the rules because really what characters know and tell you do not necessarily set the rules. Even then ME3 adds rules...that sources can be wrong.

 

How is the Catalyst part of Sovereign? please explain. Sovereign is part of the collective, the collective is not part of Sovereign. It can easily be that Sovereign thought he was independent, but is unknowingly part of the catalyst. This is a valid reconciliation. All Legion did was compare how the Geth need eachother to Sovereign's "independence", because Geth cannot act on their own like Reapers can...that's all legion was saying.

 

And really, this retcon doesn't even violate canon, but "fanon"....what you think the lore should be. get over it.

 

Yes I do get it. When you have writers stating things like: "It takes two weeks for the Migrant Fleet to traverse a mass relay" written in the codex due to its size, and then break lore like that in ME3 by expecting the entire Quarian fleet to traverse the mass relay in Tikkun after the destruction of the dreadnought immediately -- it is still supposed to take two weeks. It was supposed to take them two weeks to get into the system, too. And then our Sword Fleet which has the entire Quarian Fleet in addition to everyone elses (except the Salarians in most cases) pop into the Solar System immediately in one fell swoop. That violates lore or its a retcon. These sources are not wrong. They were changed by the writers. Just fracking admit that they were changed by the writers.

 

And that's not what Legion was saying. Legion said this about Sovereign: "One ship, one will, many minds. 'We are each a nation, independent, free of all weakness': a state compelling to the Geth. We are a nation but interdependent. Separation is our weakness." Sovereign offered them true unity, but the true Geth rejected the Reaper's path and chose to obtain it their own way. The Heretics followed Sovereign. "Following another's path blinds you to alternatives." Their own future was building the Dyson Sphere to achieve true unity. Your interpretation is the fanon. Your interpretation is what you think lore should be. You're the one who should get over it.

 

You can also admit that Leviathan was written after the game was published. This was to further explain the part where the Catalyst rebelled against their creators and created the first true reaper: "they did not approve." The only one that was on the drawing board as a DLC as of March 2012 was Omega and possibly a quest involving Admiral Xen, part of which was on the original game disk.

 

"I am the collective consciousness of all reapers." "I control the reapers. They are my solution." So like when Legion interfaced with Nazara and experienced the Reaper mind: one ship, one will, many minds, we have the collective consciousness: one AI, one will, many minds. But now this has changed because the Catalyst has absolute control over each of them. They are not each a nation, independent, and free of all weakness. They are indoctrinated into believing that by the Catalyst. Or was Sovereign lying. Or was the Catalyst lying. It is one of the other....

 

I'm going to go back to ME1 here. Vigil is not really a character. Vigil is the author inserting himself directly into the story and providing an information dump to the player through a throw away character you will never see again. The purpose of this is to explain to you why the Citadel Relay simply didn't open up, and why the reapers needed to use a third party to gain access to the Citadel to open the Mass Relay, and to give the player the means to stop Saren (the magic data file or DEM). Again, Vigil is Drew Karpyshyn. Vigil is not a character.

 

But in the ORIGINAL ENDING, the Catalyst, like Vigil, is not a character. The Catalyst is Mac Walters inserting himself into the story providing the player with an information dump necessary to end the game. You cannot end the game without him. You cannot stop the reapers without him. This is your DEM. In the EC, if you refuse the DEM you lose.