I wonder if an early build of the crucible is what created the Great Rift Valley on Klendagon. Maybe that's what the catalyst meant when it said (something like), "A similar solution was tried in the past."
The Great Rift I believe was caused by the same weapon that destroyed the Derelict Reaper.
Its too bad we couldn't investigate the weapon or at least see the size of it. And if possible, mass produce it.
Indeed. Every time the reapers enter a new orbit they're staring down the barrel of a big gun. Cue massive fireworks display and planetwide celebrations.
It does, but the presentation makes it confusing. Shepard can't argue with it, and all three choices appear, on the surface, to benefit its argument, with Synthesis being visually presented as the best choice in the center. Pre-Leviathan, we didn't even have the context of, "Oh, it was programmed by idiots that thought they were hot-**** programmers, and that's why it's doing this."
I think one of the improvements of the EC and Leviathan was mitigating this assumption that the Catalyst was a mouthpiece for the writers' beliefs, but it's still an issue for some.
Even before Leviathan, I thought the Catalyst was programmed by idiots.
After Leviathan, I still think it was programmed by idiots. Arrogant idiots who can't accept they screwed up and keep insisting "There was no mistake, it still serves its purpose" Which to me sounds like an attempt to justify EC
And yes, Synthesis was clearly intended to be the "perfect" ending. Which raises really unpleasant implications for future Mass Effect games for me.
I'm very much against the idea of a "perfect" ending because it goes against the spirit of the games. Whether you saved or sacrificed the council, whether you destroyed or kept the collector base, they're all supposed to be valid.
Even before Leviathan, I thought the Catalyst was programmed by idiots.
After Leviathan, I still think it was programmed by idiots. Arrogant idiots who can't accept they screwed up and keep insisting "There was no mistake, it still serves its purpose" Which to me sounds like an attempt to justify EC
And yes, Synthesis was clearly intended to be the "perfect" ending. Which raises really unpleasant implications for future Mass Effect games for me.
"There was no mistake; it still serves its purpose."
"Are you f*cking kidding me? It almost wiped you out."
"And?"
"I...Sweet Lap-dancing Jesus, I'm done."
I'm very much against the idea of a "perfect" ending because it goes against the spirit of the games. Whether you saved or sacrificed the council, whether you destroyed or kept the collector base, they're all supposed to be valid.
Valid doesn't mean perfect.
To me if one ending is demonstratively superior it damages the validity of other options.
To me if one ending is demonstratively superior it damages the validity of other options.
This is true. The same is also true of plenty of other choices you make throughout the trilogy. In BDtS, Shepard should be able to have the Normandy destroy whatever ship Balak escapes on, thereby allowing you to both catch and kill him AND save the hostages, but then it would totally destroy the dilemma presented to you when you enter the facility. I suppose my own personal gripe is the existence of such a wide range of choices anyway, because Control and Synthesis are not terribly meaningful to me, but with Destroy, its consequences, while seemingly fitting thematically, just seems so arbitrary, especially since it really strains the suspension of disbelief in how Mass Effect depicts how computers and other electronics actually work.
The problem with what is valid and what is not. What is perfect and what is not depend upon one thing to me, and people are going to disagree here, and that's their prerogative. Shepard is a soldier (whatever) and Shepard's orders, regardless of your journal entry, from "the man" are contained in this sentence: "You're wrong, Shepard. Dead reapers is how we win this." Complete your mission.
But how you've gathered everything that "targets every single reaper in the galaxy" and put that onto the crucible, why doesn't the crucible just target every reaper in the galaxy with it's death ray? You'd think with that level of sophistication of space magic it should be able to do that, right? But if it did only that and nothing else, who would pick control or synthesis? But they threw on "destruction of all synthetics" and "destruction of technology" just to sour it enough to make you consider the other endings.
I'm curious as to how people would see this if in high-EMS, the relays and Citadel were pretty much unscathed in all endings.
This is true. The same is also true of plenty of other choices you make throughout the trilogy. In BDtS, Shepard should be able to have the Normandy destroy whatever ship Balak escapes on, thereby allowing you to both catch and kill him AND save the hostages, but then it would totally destroy the dilemma presented to you when you enter the facility.
A really good example.
I suppose my own personal gripe is the existence of such a wide range of choices anyway, because Control and Synthesis are not terribly meaningful to me, but with Destroy, its consequences, while seemingly fitting thematically, just seems so arbitrary, especially since it really strains the suspension of disbelief in how Mass Effect depicts how computers and other electronics actually work.
That's an understandable sentiment. I'm of the belief the Crucible needed more of an explanation than unknowable macguffin.
The problem with what is valid and what is not. What is perfect and what is not depend upon one thing to me, and people are going to disagree here, and that's their prerogative. Shepard is a soldier (whatever) and Shepard's orders, regardless of your journal entry, from "the man" are contained in this sentence: "You're wrong, Shepard. Dead reapers is how we win this." Complete your mission.
This is of course personal preference which is fine, and indeed the point to have multiple choices. I've seen people suggest stuff that attracted a small percentage of the fanbase should be cut in the future so the resources can be used on other things and I'm like but that'd be 15/20% of the fanbase the games would never have appealed to.
But how you've gathered everything that "targets every single reaper in the galaxy" and put that onto the crucible, why doesn't the crucible just target every reaper in the galaxy with it's death ray? You'd think with that level of sophistication of space magic it should be able to do that, right? But if it did only that and nothing else, who would pick control or synthesis? But they threw on "destruction of all synthetics" and "destruction of technology" just to sour it enough to make you consider the other endings.
I wouldn't have an issue with it if it was explained why. Like if it was some jerkass race that couldn't stand synthetics that designed it that way that'd be a perfectly valid reason. The way it was done is where the problem arises because it does come off as just thrown in for the sake of it.
The problem with what is valid and what is not. What is perfect and what is not depend upon one thing to me, and people are going to disagree here, and that's their prerogative. Shepard is a soldier (whatever) and Shepard's orders, regardless of your journal entry, from "the man" are contained in this sentence: "You're wrong, Shepard. Dead reapers is how we win this." Complete your mission.
But how you've gathered everything that "targets every single reaper in the galaxy" and put that onto the crucible, why doesn't the crucible just target every reaper in the galaxy with it's death ray? You'd think with that level of sophistication of space magic it should be able to do that, right? But if it did only that and nothing else, who would pick control or synthesis? But they threw on "destruction of all synthetics" and "destruction of technology" just to sour it enough to make you consider the other endings.
From Hackett, yes? I thought the sentence was, "He's wrong, Shepard..." referring to TIM thinking that controlling the reapers was the way to win the war/stop the harvest. Minor point but it does kinda change things. I'll add too thatif you choose to encourage EDI to "grow", shep will tell her (something like) he has no use for a soldier who can't think for themselves. Makes me think shep isn't inclined to blindly follow orders either.
Anyway, I agree with the second part. There was no good reason for the geth and EDI to be destroyed along with the reapers.
"There was no mistake; it still serves its purpose."
"Are you f*cking kidding me? It almost wiped you out."
"And?"
"I...Sweet Lap-dancing Jesus, I'm done."
That line is so bizarre and it still racks my brain for why it was put in there. The Leviathans didn't build the Catalyst out of some love for organics or even specifically their thrall races -- they just didn't want AI to destroy their tribute gravy train. However, with that in mind the Catalyst destroying not only the train itself but it's destination into the pockets of the cuttlefish completely goes against the entire reason the Catalyst was created (although not necessarily it's programming, the Leviathans I guess were really terrible at programming).
I guess it could have been there to show how blindingly, stupidly arrogant the Leviathans were, which leads me to wonder why such an arrogant species would easily admit to a problem that was beyond their power and understanding (plus, I have problems believing anyone in the Leviathans' position could be so dumb). Or that it was put in there because the reason for the DLC is to justify the Catalyst so even the Leviathans weren't allowed to say anything negative about it.
I don't think anyone needs to say anything negative about something that openly admits to the cyclical harvest of the galaxy for what may have been nearly a billion years. That kinda speaks for itself. I thought the point to the DLC was to show that it would change course if it saw an option it liked better.
From Hackett, yes? I thought the sentence was, "He's wrong, Shepard..." referring to TIM thinking that controlling the reapers was the way to win the war/stop the harvest. Minor point but it does kinda change things. I'll add too thatif you choose to encourage EDI to "grow", shep will tell her (something like) he has no use for a soldier who can't think for themselves. Makes me think shep isn't inclined to blindly follow orders either.
Anyway, I agree with the second part. There was no good reason for the geth and EDI to be destroyed along with the reapers.
"He's wrong, Shepard. Dead reapers is how we win this." Okay fine. It's been since the Citadel DLC came out since I've played the game. The final point is that "Dead reapers is how we win this." It really doesn't change anything. But it does give one a place to focus, especially if one looks at the starbrat as an indoctrination attempt. So much speculation. Are you speculating?
"He's wrong, Shepard. Dead reapers is how we win this." Okay fine. It's been since the Citadel DLC came out since I've played the game. The final point is that "Dead reapers is how we win this." It really doesn't change anything. But it does give one a place to focus, especially if one looks at the starbrat as an indoctrination attempt. So much speculation. Are you speculating?
I'm always speculating, it's more fun that way... and I'll go on record and say that I do pick destroy most of the time, as I do generally agree that the only good reaper is a dead reaper. It's just that I can see the upside to a control ending too.
"There was no mistake; it still serves its purpose."
"Are you f*cking kidding me? It almost wiped you out."
"And?"
"I...Sweet Lap-dancing Jesus, I'm done."
I don't see how this goes against the lore, at least. It seems the more evolved an organic sapient species is in Mass Effect, the more monumentally arrogant they become.
-Ardat-Yakshi (maybe in a sense)
-Prothians (sort of)
-Thorian
-Leviathan
A 'things won't go wrong, the universe exists for me' type of attitude. In this, Leviathan DLC doesn't deviate. 
I cannot believe you people. You are discussing Catalyst like it was actually a valid element of the ME story. It isn't. It, like the Crucible, is an incoherent, utterly stupid mess which has no place in the lore. It just doesn't have any credibility as a part of the universe. It's broken. Don't give it validation by discussing it in any different context than a writers' fiasco. Don't aknowledge it. It makes no sense.
Too bad.
Hey, I was just waiting for the Catalyst to start calling Shepard "Goodlife"
It, like the Crucible, is an incoherent, utterly stupid mess which has no place in the lore. It just doesn't have any credibility as a part of the universe. It's broken. Don't give it validation by discussing it in any different context than a writers' fiasco. Don't aknowledge it. It makes no sense.
Sounds like you're describing the plot of ME2.
In terms of a trilogy it makes no sense. Or little to no sense
In terms of a standalone adventure it is quite good.
The Reapers themselves make less sense; the Catalyst is in to clean up that mess some. The cycles exist because Drew K. thought they sounded cool, and he figured he'd come up with some reason for them later. I guess that didn't work out too well. (Less snarky version: he was ripping off Frederik Pohl, but forgot that Pohl's plot only works because the enemies really are uninterested in organics.)I cannot believe you people. You are discussing Catalyst like it was actually a valid element of the ME story. It isn't. It, like the Crucible, is an incoherent, utterly stupid mess which has no place in the lore. It just doesn't have any credibility as a part of the universe. It's broken. Don't give it validation by discussing it in any different context than a writers' fiasco. Don't aknowledge it. It makes no sense.
I cannot believe you people. You are discussing Catalyst like it was actually a valid element of the ME story. It isn't. It, like the Crucible, is an incoherent, utterly stupid mess which has no place in the lore. It just doesn't have any credibility as a part of the universe. It's broken. Don't give it validation by discussing it in any different context than a writers' fiasco. Don't aknowledge it. It makes no sense.
No sense to you. It actually is a valid element of Mass Effect that makes a lot of sense in the writing of the trilogy. There's no writer's fiasco, only reader's fiasco.
The Reapers themselves make less sense; the Catalyst is in to clean up that mess some. The cycles exist because Drew K. thought they sounded cool, and he figured he'd come up with some reason for them later. I guess that didn't work out too well. (Less snarky version: he was ripping off Frederik Pohl, but forgot that Pohl's plot only works because the enemies really are uninterested in organics.)
If you want to apply the same credibility standard to both, go right ahead.
Saberhagen did it first.
Retour en haut