981 réponses à ce sujet

[Mcfly616]

Mass Effect isn't some airtight bastion of internal logic. I feel that the game earned my generosity in a lot of respects so I don't pick it apart like I would the Star Wars prequels or the 2009 Star Trek and its abhorrent sequel, but it does have its fair share of problems, and its more vocal critics are not all rabid anti-BioWare trolls of something.

I agree with everything you said (especially the Star Trek sequel....god that sucked). No, they're not all rabid anti-bioware trolls....but there's a fair amount of them.


I have a plethora of things I would like to see changed in the next game or would've liked to see done differently in the Shepard trilogy. Most of the time I refrain from listing my own personal criticisms and nitpickings due to the fact that there's already enough vitriol and negativity and hate around here, I try to avoid starting something that will surely and easily result in a hate thread. I prefer constructive discussions. Not making wild extreme claims based on my own interpretations or lack of an in-game explanation.

[Mcfly616]

@McFly. I'm not going to say trying to find the source of the elevator movement isn't digging, because it really is. But while there may be some digging in the original post, it comes off more as an attempt for the poster to figure out why he was unhappy with the game. And that's what comes across. Nothing wrong with that intent. And thus, why 'dig' into his post? Better to address the general intent.

I know, then we wouldn't have anything to talk about. But just sayin...

I'm not talking about the elevator. I'm talking about the OP.



However, regarding the elevator....I fail to see how the explanations at the bottom of page 1 are 'digging'. They're quite sensical.

[Kel Riever]

Oh my gawd, never, not ONCE is EVER hate the problem.  LOL!

 

Again, people have jobs because of those haters, and if they lose them because of those haters, that IS their own problem.  That's how it is in any industry.

 

Unless you want to believe the company itself, that wants to misdirect this whole conversation with the excuse, 'its the negativity.'

 

Actually, that IS them doing their job...of surviving...since they didn't execute well enough in the product for enough people to like them.

 

This is what politicians do.  They tell you that its the *insert straw man* that is the problem.  All the time while not passing the budget that lets the country run (by the way, I'm not even blaming one party over another here, just pointing out how it is incessant between all).

 

Really, this whole thing goes better if it starts (and I would argue this if I thought the game was good), "I liked it because X.  I had no problem because of X because it really didn't matter in the scope of what I cared about." etc. etc.

 

That I wouldn't argue with.  It is clean, isn't blaming other people, and doesn't compromise one own's opinion. I'm sure there are other ways to do it but that's how I would.

 

E.G. Underworld - the movie series"

 

"I liked Underworld.  I had no problem with ridiculous action scenes of convenience because I like that sort of thing.  Sure, it isn't realistic for Kate Beckinsale (sp?) to run around in leather and hotpants, but hey, I like that sort of thing.  I had no problem with physics that didn't work because the point of the whole movie for me was about vampires and werewolves killing each other in viscerally entertaining ways.  No, I don't think they were 'good' movies, but I am not blaming anyone else for calling them bad and I liked them anyway."

 

Lastly, sure I disagree with you McFly but at least you attempt to make sense.  And haven't gone on trying to tell me how I shouldn't quote you 

[KaiserShep]

Overall, I think ME2 suffers a great deal more when observed under a more critical lens than ME3. The anticlimactic ending makes it easier to pick on the latter.

[Mcfly616]

Overall, I think ME2 suffers a great deal more when observed under a more critical lens than ME3.

that goes without saying.

Want a real eye-opener? Play the Suicide Mission without the music....experience how underwhelming it is.




(I guess that says a lot about the music lol)

[Mcfly616]

- snip -

Maybe I should rephrase 'hate' to 'blind hate'. You know, like you hate something so much you won't even listen to reason.


Underworld. I like Underworld. In fact, I'd go as far as saying that it's a decent if not fairly good movie. Meaning imo, it's not in guilty pleasure territory. The sequels on the other hand....ewww

[DeathScepter]

 Wreeeeeex!

shepard

[AlanC9]

No, that's hyperbole which is doing exactly what you are accusing someone else of doing.  In other words, you are being a hypocrite aka an elitist.

I must have missed something. What do hypocrisy and elitism have to do with each other?

[ImaginaryMatter]

Well in this situation it would be new. It wouldn't make sense for them to create an AI that would have limits on how much it's able to control something they never knew about and didn't exist (the Crucible). It would also contradict the fact that their lack of AI limits, brought upon by their hubris, is exactly what caused their downfall and therefore the Reapers.

 

They never believed the Catalyst could turn on them, that was pretty much the point in the Leviathan DLC.

The Catalyst is clearly following it's coding to find a solution to its problem, but it has very little, if any, limits on how it goes about this. Saying they gave it a small amount of control of the Citadel to somehow "limit" it out of fear that it might rebel isn't supported by evidence. In fact it's directly contradicted by the entirety of the Leviathan DLC.

 

 

Crucible by the looks of it. It rises when you're ready to choose, which is when you approach it and/or stop talking to the Catalyst. Seeing as though it reprogrammed the Catalyst to tell you about the options it presents, it's not that big a leap in logic to say it takes a cue from the Catalyst as to when it's done explaining. That wouldn't even need VI level of programming to do, you could program something like that (a cue I mean) with todays technology.

As for your last paragraph, we don't really know if the story has the integrity to stand up to close scrutiny and this level of speculation. Unfortunately fans don't seem interested in speculating. Look at Massively above who claims to either have not considered the Crucible in two years, or who did consider it instead decided to not bring it up because it would cause speculation and might stop people being able to bash Bioware. Look at King Mark or Kel Riever above who don't even try to speculate, instead they just came in and bashed Bioware because lol.

You say it can't stand up to close scrutiny, I say we don't know that because people are far more interested in bashing Bioware due to faulty interpretations of what they saw in front of them. People would rather bash that scrutinise. They would rather hate than speculate (lolrhymes). I love speculating, I love trying to figure out things, but unfortunately too many people on these forums would rather just bash Bioware and hate.

 

I'm saying the Catalyst has limits in general, not limits about the Crucible. Like perhaps the Citadel or maybe the base of it was built as a prison, that the Catalyst or other AIs could not interact with. Perhaps that is why it created the Keepers to do things for it, since they are organic. There is precedence for it, the Leviathan's knew AI were dangerous so it makes sense for them to put limits on it. I don't exactly see how this information is newer than assuming the Crucible creators knew that there was an AI in the station controlling everything, do you have any other support for this other than events taking place one after another? Because all those seem they could just as likely be the Catalyst who only has access over certain parts of the station for some reason.

 

As for the Leviathans I don't see how them envisioning the Catalyst as another tool would mean they would have to have a completely laissez faire attitude towards it. They did experience some humility because they did acknowledge that there was a problem they could not solve. And Leviathan hubris doesn't seem mutually exclusive with some degree of caution, so I don't think the possibility is entirely impossible. Which puts it in the realm with the rest of this argument.

 

Why I brought up the writers is because there is plenty of evidence that the writers don't really consider this stuff, I mean the Geth/Quarian conflict alone, and it's not like there's just evidence limited to the ending or even ME. This conversation can go on forever because the writers gave very tiny amounts of information about the Catalyst and the Crucibl, so we won't run into a ton of contradictions but we won't have much past speculation and even then all this speculation just seems to lead to a bunch of events that are at best implausible.

[ShadowLordXII]

I'm not talking about the elevator. I'm talking about the OP.



However, regarding the elevator....I fail to see how the explanations at the bottom of page 1 are 'digging'. They're quite sensical.

Honestly, I've yet to find to find an explanation that still doesn't account for "He Can't" or "He Won't" within the context of the Star-Child's explanations. There have been a few good answers, but they simply don't make sense within the game's narrative cohesion.

 

Let's go over a few popular ones:

 

1) The Star-Child can't physically act on his own.

 

That's what I'd think at first since he is a hologram. But he's also the most advanced and oldest AI in the galaxy, he's also integrated with the Citadel. Just because he can't physically act on his own, that doesn't constitute being unable to directly act on his own. For example, even though the prothean scientists sabotaged the keeper signal between them and Sovereign, but the keepers still directly respond to the Citadel (aka Starchild.) 

 

What's stopping Star-Child from signaling the keepers himself?

 

There's also the clear stated sentence, "The Citadel is part of me." And that also includes a hidden Mass Relay to Dark Space where the Catalyst's army of reapers wait to enter the galaxy to wipe out organics so that they're not wiped out by synthetics.

 

What's stopping the Star-Child from activating the Dark Relay itself?

 

It makes no sense to believe that this Star-Child would purposefully design the Citadel and lock himself out of the loop. Even if he wanted to keep a low profile, its ludicrous to believe that he'd design and build the entire Mass Relay network and the Citadel and make it so that he can't control anything on purpose. That's the equivalent of if I were to build a huge mansion and left town without ever keeping tabs to make sure that it wasn't vandalized or looted. Also, the Star-Child's activation of the elevator and his apparent deactivation of the Crucible in the Reject Ending clearly show that he can exhibit control over the Citadel.

 

2) Star-Child didn't want to be discovered.

 

Both in-game dialogue and codex entries note that the Citadel was meant to be the perfect trap. Easily accessible and livable enough to be the center of a galactic community, but with only the keepers fully understanding how it's detailed insides. That was part of the Reaper trap and why they were so efficient at wiping out civilizations before they knew what had happened.

 

In fact, while the protheans (a civilization far more advanced than the current cycle) eventually discovered the reaper cycles, they were also just as oblivious to the true purpose of the Citadel and were massacred for it. The only reason that this cycle even got a warning was because the scientists sent out a coded message through the prothean beacons, but it was a message that could not be understood without a cypher. Furthermore, that message was only meant to be a warning about the Citadel itself rather than the Star-Child. Even Chorban's research was merely further confirmation of the reaper cycle and there was no mention or hint of Star-Child in his email.

 

My point is that these tidbits of information along with the Catalyst's own admission that Shepard is the first organic to ever encounter him since the cycles began clearly shows that the Star-Child was in no danger of being discovered. Even if he was, by the time he activated the Dark Relay by himself, the reapers would pour in, destroy the center of government and the rest of the galaxy would be wiped out by the reapers while the silent puppeteer plays Galaga. The galaxy becomes empty, the holo-brat goes to take a nap and the keepers clean up the Citadel for the next cycle.

 

3) Hubris

 

I'm not going to dispute the notion that the Star-Child is prideful. But Pride doesn't always equal stupid and if the Star-child's existence were to be accepted, then it's clearly a very intelligent AI.

 

In fact, it's too intelligent to let an easily fixable glitch exasperate into a larger problem that threatens to undo his cycles of extinction and the greater synthetic-organic problem. The plot would never be able to happen if the Catalyst had applied common sense and undid the prothean sabotage or just activated the Dark Relay by itself. But if we're really going to accept Hubris as the reason why the Star-Child didn't activate the Dark Relay by itself, then that's pretty much admitting that the entire trilogy is based on a contrivance.

 

4) You're just a hater who wants to bash Bioware.

 

Oh no, I'm done beating the dead horse. I'm just surprised as to how many people overlook this plot-hole. To be fair, it wasn't one that I didn't notice until I replayed the series after the EC and it's stuck over since.

 

5) It's really just a minor problem that you're exaggerating.

 

I disagree. This isn't a minor nitpick that you can hand-wave. Bioware's inability to address and resolve this conflict has pretty much attached a dead-weight to whole series which causes the entire plot to collapse in on itself.

 

As I said in the OP, Sovereign's actions are what kickstarted the entire plot of the first game and in connection, the entire series. The prothean's sacrifice was so effective that Sovereign became desperate to correct the problem through any means necessary and this rippled into other events like: The Rachni Wars (Sovereign indoctrinated them), the Genophage (Direct result of actions taken during the Rachni Wars), The Geth problem (Sovereign's recruitment of the Heratics only exasperated the galaxy's distrust of them) and Saren's indoctrination (Directly leads to Shepard's rise in reputation and power).

 

Then in the last five minutes of the series, it turns out that the entire plot is based on an artificial contrivance. Did the Creators really expect us to believe that the Reaper's creator lived on/was part of the Citadel for the entire time and never did anything to stop us or even reveal itself until now?

 

This is why the clear majority tie most of the problems with the ending to the Star-Child. If you simply erase the Catalyst from this ending, then a large portion of the ending's problems would likely disappear with it.

 

Then again, it's only a game. I'm just the kind of guy who gets really irritated when something clearly stupid is being waved in my face and the person waving the stupid thing in my face is telling me that it isn't stupid. My suspension of disbelief can only be stretched so far and Star-Child is where I throw up my arms and install the MEHEM.

[Ithurael]

OP You will not find an in-game explanation for what you are looking for. You will just have to do what most everyone else does:

 

Headcanon it away and make it work with your imagination (you can use IT or anything Robosexuals said)

 

Deal with it and move on (you can hate it, but just keep playing and deal)

 

Install MEHEM or MEEM

 

Not play ME anymore (I stopped playing the mass effect saga after my 3rd playthrough of ME3. I just moved on to more fun games)

 

I think that is about it...most 'explanations' I have seen are just headcanon that do not have in game lore backing them up.

[The Bad One]

I'm saying the Catalyst has limits in general, not limits about the Crucible. Like perhaps the Citadel or maybe the base of it was built as a prison, that the Catalyst or other AIs could not interact with. Perhaps that is why it created the Keepers to do things for it, since they are organic. There is precedence for it, the Leviathan's knew AI were dangerous so it makes sense for them to put limits on it. I don't exactly see how this information is newer than assuming the Crucible creators knew that there was an AI in the station controlling everything, do you have any other support for this other than events taking place one after another? Because all those seem they could just as likely be the Catalyst who only has access over certain parts of the station for some reason.

 

As for the Leviathans I don't see how them envisioning the Catalyst as another tool would mean they would have to have a completely laissez faire attitude towards it. They did experience some humility because they did acknowledge that there was a problem they could not solve. And Leviathan hubris doesn't seem mutually exclusive with some degree of caution, so I don't think the possibility is entirely impossible. Which puts it in the realm with the rest of this argument.

 

Why I brought up the writers is because there is plenty of evidence that the writers don't really consider this stuff, I mean the Geth/Quarian conflict alone, and it's not like there's just evidence limited to the ending or even ME. This conversation can go on forever because the writers gave very tiny amounts of information about the Catalyst and the Crucibl, so we won't run into a ton of contradictions but we won't have much past speculation and even then all this speculation just seems to lead to a bunch of events that are at best implausible.

Well again their hubris does appear to have made them overlook caution. I mean you're saying they were cautious enough to "limit" it to only being able to do certain things with the Citadel, but not cautious enough to stop it doing the same thing they've seen AI's doing to all their creators repeatedly? They clearly considered themselves above their thralls, hence their lack of caution when it came to the Catalyst, hence their destruction. I mean it doesn't really follow that they limited it to some control of the Citadel, rather than no control of the Citadel.

You could say it's just as likely that the Catalyst has some control over the Citadel, but it would have to be based on evidence. The Leviathans overlooked the Catalyst to the extent that it managed to wipe them out. Granting it power to "limit" it doesn't follow, that would just grant it more power and would do the complete opposite of limiting it, and it really doesn't follow that they'd be that cautious in that situation but not cautious enough to stop it from killing them all.

You could guess that they did grant it the power to control the Citadel to a limited extent, but that would still leave you in the situation where the answer is "Why didn't the Catalyst do this and that if it could control the Citadel?" and wouldn't follow from anything that happens in the game. In fact the Leviathans being cautious and therefore granting it more power doesn't make sense, and is the complete opposite of what we learned of the Leviathans.

ANYWAY, your point is that this could go on forever and we wont run into very much contradictions (if any). But don't you ever wonder, after realising that, why this place always chooses the most negative, contradictory explanation? Don't you see that we have done something that people haven't been able to do in two years because they'd rather just spout irrrational hatred that try to rationalise the events that take place before them? Does it not annoy you that people are spreading hatred based on a faulty premise? An idea that causes contradictions?

Even if someone hates Bioware, I don't understand why that means they can't speculate. You saw how much people were hating Bioware because they believed it was the Catalyst that activated that elevator, which was causing contradictions. You saw how shocked they were when I presented an alternative that fixed those contradictions. Even if I hated Bioware, I'd hate being caught out like that by someone presenting an alternative viewpoint.

So tl;dr, even if you hate Bioware, all that means is you should still speculate so your argments for hating them is airtight. Hatred based on a faulty premise will just backfire the moment someone calls it out.

[Mcfly616]

-snip-

The Catalyst is all about Controlling everything through it's thralls with the use of indoctrination and genetic modification, whilst also making itself a complete mystery to everybody who has ever lived. Maybe check out Leviathan and listen to it as it explains to you how the Catalyst took over. The Reapers, Keepers, Collectors, Saren and any other indoctrinated individuals are literally an extension of itself. The game has only ever demonstrated this. The Catalyst is at the top of the pyramid.

As KaiserShep put it: "If we're to retroactively add the Catalyst into ME1, then it simply had direct access to the entire Citadel through its keeper thralls, and the hold over them was severed by the Protheans. Like the Shadow Broker's arrogance blinding him to the possibility of someone else gaining direct access to his network, the Catalyst did not anticipate that someone would undermine its sole method of controlling the station, and so it had no backup plan in case the keepers' role in its scheme was removed, which then brings the desperate plan involving Sovereign."


The Keepers don't respond to the Citadel. They were genetically altered to perform their tasks. Anything the Reapers do, is the will of the Catalyst...and so on and so forth. Same goes for anybody that's indoctrinated. If the signal is sent to the Keepers by the Reapers, it is the Catalysts will. If the signal is F'd up by the Protheans, than the Catalysts will cannot be done. The Catalyst willed Sovereign and by extension Saren to go undo the Prothean Sabotage. Shepard F'd that up. The sabotage can't get undone until the Citadel is in direct Reaper control. That doesn't happen until the end of ME3. Hence, why the Catalyst is able to once again have full control over its thralls, the Keepers....which just so happen to be its means of controlling the Citadel.

The Catalysts network of indoctrinated and genetically altered thralls, its tools, the Citadel are essentially part of itself. It controls everything through them. All connected. If you want to refute it, go ahead. Show me where the game has implied anything but the above sentence. Where it has shown the Catalyst able to physically control anything without the use of it's thralls. Please, whatever you do.....come up with a different response than: that doesn't make sense.


Actually, if that's your response, explain why it doesn't.


You say either Sovereign or the Catalyst "have to go" in order for this to make sense. I fail to see why when the above seems perfectly logical and quite clearly implied.

[FlyingSquirrel]

[Nightwriter]

The Mass Effect series kind of played like the devs were just throwing stuff at a wall to see what sticks. Sometimes this resulted in really good stuff and sometimes it resulted in head-scratcher inconsistencies.

 

Fans can speculate for solutions, but like every other fanspeculation about plotholes, it inevitably devolves into squabbles over semantics and lore details. 

[Mcfly616]

What 'plotholes'?



The Anderson one?

[ShadowLordXII]

The Catalyst is all about Controlling everything through it's thralls with the use of indoctrination and genetic modification, whilst also making itself a complete mystery to everybody who has ever lived. Maybe check out Leviathan and listen to it as it explains to you how the Catalyst took over. The Reapers, Keepers, Collectors, Saren and any other indoctrinated individuals are literally an extension of itself. The game has only ever demonstrated this. The Catalyst is at the top of the pyramid.

As KaiserShep put it: "If we're to retroactively add the Catalyst into ME1, then it simply had direct access to the entire Citadel through its keeper thralls, and the hold over them was severed by the Protheans. Like the Shadow Broker's arrogance blinding him to the possibility of someone else gaining direct access to his network, the Catalyst did not anticipate that someone would undermine its sole method of controlling the station, and so it had no backup plan in case the keepers' role in its scheme was removed, which then brings the desperate plan involving Sovereign."


The Keepers don't respond to the Citadel. They were genetically altered to perform their tasks. Anything the Reapers do, is the will of the Catalyst...and so on and so forth. Same goes for anybody that's indoctrinated. If the signal is sent to the Keepers by the Reapers, it is the Catalysts will. If the signal is F'd up by the Protheans, than the Catalysts will cannot be done. The Catalyst willed Sovereign and by extension Saren to go undo the Prothean Sabotage. Shepard F'd that up. The sabotage can't get undone until the Citadel is in direct Reaper control. That doesn't happen until the end of ME3. Hence, why the Catalyst is able to once again have full control over its thralls, the Keepers....which just so happen to be its means of controlling the Citadel.

The Catalysts network of indoctrinated and genetically altered thralls, its tools, the Citadel are essentially part of itself. It controls everything through them. All connected. If you want to refute it, go ahead. Show me where the game has implied anything but the above sentence. Where it has shown the Catalyst able to physically control anything without the use of it's thralls. Please, whatever you do.....come up with a different response than: that doesn't make sense.


Actually, if that's your response, explain why it doesn't.


You say either Sovereign or the Catalyst "have to go" in order for this to make sense. I fail to see why when the above seems perfectly logical and quite clearly implied.

 

I'm not repeating myself.

 

I've already said my stance and why it makes no sense. In fact, it appears as though you're blatantly ignoring key parts of my post. Everything that you said was repeated and I brought that up and refuted each and every point and show exactly why it doesn't work in the context of the series or it's presentation.

 

If you like the ending then fine. But delude yourself into thinking that I'm speaking nonsense. For one, how could the protheans sabotage something that they didn't know existed? The Catalyst said that Shepard was the first organic to ever encounter him, that means that no one knew about him until then. The first game clearly says that the scientists sabotaged the connection between the keepers and sovereign so that the keepers would only respond to the Citadel. Hence the reason why Sovereign had to try to take direct control of the Citadel.

 

Again, the Citadel as designed by the Catalyst. The Catalyst lives on the Citadel. The Citadel is part of the Catalyst, likely in the same way that EDI was connected to the Normandy. The elevator and the deactivation of the Mass Relay clearly show that the Catalyst can exhibit direct control over the Citadel.

 

So your assertion (which would be valid if not directly countered by the game), falls under the category of "He can't." And I'm not going to bother wasting time explaining why this doesn't work along with "He won't."

 

And believe me, I did try to be my own devil's advocate. Star-Child is a walking last-minute plothole, I'm so sorry that you can't grasp that.

[txgoldrush]

Really...why can't the fans just admit that Vigil is wrong and Sovereign's dialogue is a red herring?

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

OP You will not find an in-game explanation for what you are looking for. You will just have to do what most everyone else does:

 

Headcanon it away and make it work with your imagination (you can use IT or anything Robosexuals said)

 

Deal with it and move on (you can hate it, but just keep playing and deal)

 

Install MEHEM or MEEM

 

Not play ME anymore (I stopped playing the mass effect saga after my 3rd playthrough of ME3. I just moved on to more fun games)

 

I think that is about it...most 'explanations' I have seen are just headcanon that do not have in game lore backing them up.

 

There is also Ryncol Theory. That's where after stopping the Reapers a second time in ME2 after blowing up the Alpha Relay in Arrival which destroyed all of the Reapers, Shepard parties in Afterlife with the crew and has a drinking contest with Grunt. After defeating Grunt in the Ryncol drinking contest, Shepard passes out and all of the events from that point on to the end of ME3 are nothing but a bad trip. You can hallucinate on that stuff. It'll tear up your insides, and you'll set off radiation counters.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Really...why can't the fans just admit that Vigil is wrong and Sovereign's dialogue is a red herring?

 

That's just stupid.

[txgoldrush]

I'm not repeating myself.

 

I've already said my stance and why it makes no sense. In fact, it appears as though you're blatantly ignoring key parts of my post. Everything that you said was repeated and I brought that up and refuted each and every point and show exactly why it doesn't work in the context of the series or it's presentation.

 

If you like the ending then fine. But delude yourself into thinking that I'm speaking nonsense. For one, how could the protheans sabotage something that they didn't know existed? The Catalyst said that Shepard was the first organic to ever encounter him, that means that no one knew about him until then. The first game clearly says that the scientists sabotaged the connection between the keepers and sovereign so that the keepers would only respond to the Citadel. Hence the reason why Sovereign had to try to take direct control of the Citadel.

 

Again, the Citadel as designed by the Catalyst. The Catalyst lives on the Citadel. The Citadel is part of the Catalyst, likely in the same way that EDI was connected to the Normandy. The elevator and the deactivation of the Mass Relay clearly show that the Catalyst can exhibit direct control over the Citadel.

 

So your assertion (which would be valid if not directly countered by the game), falls under the category of "He can't." And I'm not going to bother wasting time explaining why this doesn't work along with "He won't."

 

And believe me, I did try to be my own devil's advocate. Star-Child is a walking last-minute plothole, I'm so sorry that you can't grasp that.

 

There is no plot hole....you have really no proof that the Catalyst was ever in direct control of the Citadel.

 

You have to prove plot holes. You are just assuming one. You cannot do that.

[txgoldrush]

That's just stupid.

 

No its not...Vigil is misinformed.

 

ME3 has vendetta be wrong, why can't Vigil?

 

And Vigil was proven wrong in ME2 when he says that the Reapers destroyed all traces of their existence.....they didn't.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

There is no plot hole....you have really no proof that the Catalyst was ever in direct control of the Citadel.

 

You have to prove plot holes. You are just assuming one. You cannot do that.

 

The plot holes exist. He doesn't have to prove anything. There are pages of discussion on the old forums. If you're not satisfied with this discussion go there and look them up.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Well again their hubris does appear to have made them overlook caution. I mean you're saying they were cautious enough to "limit" it to only being able to do certain things with the Citadel, but not cautious enough to stop it doing the same thing they've seen AI's doing to all their creators repeatedly? They clearly considered themselves above their thralls, hence their lack of caution when it came to the Catalyst, hence their destruction. I mean it doesn't really follow that they limited it to some control of the Citadel, rather than no control of the Citadel.

You could say it's just as likely that the Catalyst has some control over the Citadel, but it would have to be based on evidence. The Leviathans overlooked the Catalyst to the extent that it managed to wipe them out. Granting it power to "limit" it doesn't follow, that would just grant it more power and would do the complete opposite of limiting it, and it really doesn't follow that they'd be that cautious in that situation but not cautious enough to stop it from killing them all.

You could guess that they did grant it the power to control the Citadel to a limited extent, but that would still leave you in the situation where the answer is "Why didn't the Catalyst do this and that if it could control the Citadel?" and wouldn't follow from anything that happens in the game. In fact the Leviathans being cautious and therefore granting it more power doesn't make sense, and is the complete opposite of what we learned of the Leviathans.

ANYWAY, your point is that this could go on forever and we wont run into very much contradictions (if any). But don't you ever wonder, after realising that, why this place always chooses the most negative, contradictory explanation? Don't you see that we have done something that people haven't been able to do in two years because they'd rather just spout irrrational hatred that try to rationalise the events that take place before them? Does it not annoy you that people are spreading hatred based on a faulty premise? An idea that causes contradictions?

Even if someone hates Bioware, I don't understand why that means they can't speculate. You saw how much people were hating Bioware because they believed it was the Catalyst that activated that elevator, which was causing contradictions. You saw how shocked they were when I presented an alternative that fixed those contradictions. Even if I hated Bioware, I'd hate being caught out like that by someone presenting an alternative viewpoint.

So tl;dr, even if you hate Bioware, all that means is you should still speculate so your argments for hating them is airtight. Hatred based on a faulty premise will just backfire the moment someone calls it out.

 

It is odd, I don't even know why I'm defending it as I don't really believe it either. Originally I just posted it as a single hypothetical that said the Catalyst could control parts of the Citadel but somehow be limited. It's one among others including that the Prothean sabotage was much more intricate than what Vigil told us (it was neither at the Citadel nor was does it's description of the Prothean cycle match up too strongly with Javik's retelling of events). I'm sure there's others. I still contend that there is evidence to support that the Catalyst is the one doing some of this stuff. It does also have a method of projecting itself

 

To be honest I don't really care much about some speculative reason for the plotholes. The writers have shown often throughout the entire series that consistency and implications aren't their top priorities. The most likely explanation is that the writers didn't think much about the past games or things like the Codex when they wrote the ending and I don't want to spend a great deal of time second guessing the writers at every other turn. Maybe there is a reasonable explanation for all of this that is firmly supported by the lore, and not one that just happens to explain the holes without any outright contradictions, but it doesn't make the ending any better if a great number of people have to delve into the depths of the internet to find an answer.

[txgoldrush]

The plot holes exist. He doesn't have to prove anything. There are pages of discussion on the old forums. If you're not satisfied with this discussion go there and look them up.

 

No, you cannot prove a plot hole based off of assumptions, without proof. You cannot prove that the Catalyst has full control of the Citadel.

 

Just because you think its a plot hole doesn't mean it is.