407 réponses à ce sujet

[DSiKn355]

 

It is severly damaged depending on your EMS scores (from the wiki):

• If EMS is substantially low (below ~1750) and the Destroy ending is chosen, nobody exits the Normandy.
• If EMS is substantially low (below ~1750) and Control is chosen, Joker and two of the player's most-favored crew mates will exit a heavily damaged ship.
• If EMS is moderately high (above minimum, below maximum) and Destroy or Control are chosen, Joker and two of the player's most-favored crew mates will exit a heavily damaged ship.
• If EMS is 2800 or above, and Destroy or Control is chosen, Joker and two of the player's most-favored crew mates will exit a relatively undamaged ship.

 

 

So a plothole convienient to your EMS.

 

Destroy is Destroy so for EC to then change the level of it's destruction due to EMS score seems silly really.

 

Best EMS score with the original ending of Destroy the SR-2 was still damaged as shown in the first Video on post #111

[DSiKn355]

 

 

There is hull damage and smoke coming off it. I also don't see the outer engines. 

Manual control is more likely. If Citadel DLC is of any indication.

Spoiler

 

 

I would call that minor scorch marks and a burnt out EDI lol.

[Vazgen]

I would call that minor scorch marks and a burnt out EDI lol.

So what's your point? The Normandy is damaged for all versions of EMS. You don't view the damage for high EMS as severe. Thus the Normandy is unaffected, therefore the Catalyst's words are contradicted. Hence, plothole?

[fraggle]

Also some war assets you can gather strengthen the Normandy. So yes, it could theoretically be the reason the Normandy is more or less damaged depending on your score.

[DSiKn355]

Also some war assets you can gather strengthen the Normandy. So yes, it could theoretically be the reason the Normandy is more or less damaged depending on your score.

 

Did EC introduce new war assets? Because like I said post #111's first vid is of the best ending destroy (Shepard breath) and the Normandy takes medium/serious damage and not just some light scorch marks.

 

@Vazgen

 

Basically yes.

 

You can't say This thing will do "x" and then it does x for everything except you just because you and your allies have good EMS lol.

[Vazgen]

Basically yes.

 

You can't say This thing will do "x" and then it does x for everything except you just because you and your allies have good EMS lol.

It doesn't work that way. The Normandy is damaged. You may not view the damage as severe but it's entirely subjective. The game shows the Normandy affected. There is no contradiction. And EMS differences can be easily explained with Crucible damage screwing up targeting. Which is supported with the lowest EMS option when it destroys both the Reapers and everyone else. 

[fraggle]

Did EC introduce new war assets? Because like I said post #111's first vid is of the best ending destroy (Shepard breath) and the Normandy takes medium/serious damage and not just some light scorch marks.

 

No, it didn't (well you could've gained assets from all DLCs by then ), but this is beside the point. You don't like that in the pre-EC High Destroy ending the Normandy takes rather visible damage while in the EC High Destroy ending there's barely anything. Which brings me back to one of my first posts here saying the EC has a happier outcome. It's really nothing more than that.

EC is what fans got after complaining, so why do you keep comparing pre-EC and EC and say these are plotholes? It's 2 separate things which both have valid arguments as to why the Normandy was damaged the way it was in each of these 2 endings.

[DSiKn355]

It doesn't work that way. The Normandy is damaged. You may not view the damage as severe but it's entirely subjective. The game shows the Normandy affected. There is no contradiction. And EMS differences can be easily explained with Crucible damage screwing up targeting. Which is supported with the lowest EMS option when it destroys both the Reapers and everyone else. 

 

What Crucible damage? They were building it and I don't remember the Crucible ever being attacked.

 

No, it didn't (well you could've gained assets from all DLCs by then ), but this is beside the point. You don't like that in the pre-EC High Destroy ending the Normandy takes rather visible damage while in the EC High Destroy ending there's barely anything. Which brings me back to one of my first posts here saying the EC has a happier outcome. It's really nothing more than that.

EC is what fans got after complaining, so why do you keep comparing pre-EC and EC and say these are plotholes? It's 2 separate things which both have valid arguments as to why the Normandy was damaged the way it was in each of these 2 endings.

 

The only reason i mention pre-EC and EC is the fact the destruction level was set in the previous and then in the EC the destruction level become changable which shouldn't happen as Destroy attacks technology so as long as the Normandy is ship made by technology it should be attacked the same way.

 

And if it's just Synthetics due to the dialogue change and nanomacines in Shepard are classed as synthetics then EDI who runs throughout the ship she be attacked which therefore should cause damage throughout the ship.

[Vazgen]

What Crucible damage? They were building it and I don't remember the Crucible ever being attacked.

The Crucible is attacked when it is being docked to the Citadel. The Catalyst says (in High EMS) that "the device you refer to as the Crucible appears to be largely intact". In Low EMS it says: "Your Crucible device is severely damaged. The energy it releases will destroy the relays creating a chain reaction that will be unpredictable and devastating. All technology, and those who rely on synthetic technology for their survival will be lost, yourself included. Your ships, weapons... even the relays will be destroyed. Your worlds will be in ruin. Few organics will survive the blast. Fewer still will survive the days to come."

[dreamgazer]

Or....
 

 

 
lol
 
P.s Angol Fear please watch these lol.

"Because the the existence of the Catalyst and the Crucible are based on a contrivance, they have no narrative legitimacy."

Wellp, there goes the entire series then. Can't get past Eden Prime in ME1 without it.

Also, should we post smudboy's twenty some-odd video takedown of ME2 here as well?

[fraggle]

The only reason i mention pre-EC and EC is the fact the destruction level was set in the previous and then in the EC the destruction level become changable which shouldn't happen as Destroy attacks technology so as long as the Normandy is ship made by technology it should be attacked the same way.

 

Why should it be the same way?

1. They set the destruction level in pre-EC

2. Then they set a new destruction level in EC, overriding the old pre-EC ending. This was their re-written approach (along with some changed dialogue regarding what's being affected) and how they wanted it to play out, hence it doesn't matter anymore what was set in the pre-EC ending. Which I guess is your problem.

Not a plothole though.

[Oni Changas]

3 was not as good:

 

1. The graphics in 3 in my opinion look plastic. The area was well designed but looked plastic. Funny thing is 2 graphic we good except some character designs were really bad especially their clothing. 

 

2. Citidel really changed, they were like screw it we are not going to redesign it again. You actually got sort of a station in Mass effect 2 now in 3 you get an outlet store. It does not feel like a large station in space.

 

3. You run out of ammo and it's harder to find. If you are bionic long wait times to use power if you go bio class. Most of the time i was standing their while the npc goes at it.

 

4. The Normandy interior looked worse. 2 the ship looked nice but 3 the floor being tore up and the security screening thing on the ship....I mean its kind of late to have that their because whatever is already on board. After about 10 times through that screening you become annoyed with it.

 

5. The only real improvement i liked was the point me in the right direction indicators. That is out of the entire game.

1. Subjective. I agree though, at times ME2 had better showings graphically, especially those closeups of Liara at the end of LoTSB. Still blows me away. TIM and Miranda in the intro was just BW showing off. Damn. 3 had better looking NPCs though.

 

2. I agree, but in ME3 the Citadel is completely redesigned. It didn't even look like the Citadel and even lacked landmarks such as the Conduit and the docking bay. Everything was so foreign that I kept questioning if these are in the same area as ME1 and 2. ME2 kept with the visual style. The ME3 version only retains the same doors, Council Chamber and the Presidium ring lake. It's scope was relatively small, but on first playthrough I was blown away. ME1's Citadel is still superior to me however.

 

3. Biotic long cooldown? Play ME1 and ME2 again. In ME3, carry a light gun. The weight system dictates the recharge speed for all classes. The only one on long cooldown regardless is Flare, even then an Infiltrator can hit it out of Cloak and still have Tactical Cloak's 3s cooldown. Running out of ammo is pretty difficult in most missions for me, maybe it's my playstyle. I tend to mix in powers a lot and if I have a weapon dependant class with a gun with inherently low ammo, I go with ammo capacity upgrades, attachments, and armors.

 

4. I agree, but I can buy the fact that in ME3 it served a purpose. They had to haul ass from Earth before finishing up with the redesign of the Normandy. It makes sense. The screening in ME3 was a well hidden loading screen, just like ME1's elevators and going into Liara's and Garrus' respective hangouts on the Normandy.

 

5. I dunno. I liked having a Shepard that could sprint and roll. In ME1&2 he has the stamina of a couch potato. I also liked the improved power ranks. Pull and Throw hitting more than 2 targets, Concussive shot with ammo application, etc.

[DSiKn355]

The Crucible is attacked when it is being docked to the Citadel. The Catalyst says (in High EMS) that "the device you refer to as the Crucible appears to be largely intact". In Low EMS it says: "Your Crucible device is severely damaged. The energy it releases will destroy the relays creating a chain reaction that will be unpredictable and devastating. All technology, and those who rely on synthetic technology for their survival will be lost, yourself included. Your ships, weapons... even the relays will be destroyed. Your worlds will be in ruin. Few organics will survive the blast. Fewer still will survive the days to come."

 

My bad I have never played with bad EMS as I have only completed the game once but reloaded the point on the Crucible to see the Control ending and Synthesis ending.

 

It's good they tried to impliment some feel of change of events based on your play style.

 

Why should it be the same way?

1. They set the destruction level in pre-EC

2. Then they set a new destruction level in EC, overriding the old pre-EC ending. This was their re-written approach (along with some changed dialogue regarding what's being affected) and how they wanted it to play out, hence it doesn't matter anymore what was set in the pre-EC ending. Which I guess is your problem.

Not a plothole though.

 

So changes had to be made for things to make more sense, fix plotholes and for people to actually survive I guess.

 

Ok I guess I will have to force myself at some point to play through again and do destroy with high EMS (currently 3293) and see if its more satisfying lol

[angol fear]

Sorry, very busy lately.

 

 

It's good they tried to impliment some feel of change of events based on your play style.

 

They did but it seems to be details for most people who dislike the way Bioware have made it. These details make low EMS and high EMS destroy very different.

 

 

Ok I guess I will have to force myself at some point to play through again and do destroy with high EMS (currently 3293) and see if its more satisfying lol

 

Ok you'll play with the extended cut so you'll have the closure and an implicit scene that makes you understand that Shepard survived. Hope you'll enjoy it because I think that it fits to your expectations.

 

 

I've tried to watch the videos you've posted. The first can't be taken seriously : when your first argument is that Bioware don't have to care about those who will start Mass Effect with Mass Effect 3, that's ridiculously stupid. Some people started with Mass Effect 2 because they couldn't play Mass Effect 1 or they didn't want to play it. A trilogy (video game or film) is always made so that newcomers can watch/play it without starting from the beginning. Mass Effect is like any other trilogy, what he is complaining about can be applied to any trilogy. Thinking that you have to ignore people that would try to play it from Mass Effect 3 is selfish customer's opinion. I stopped at 4 or 5 minutes, his video was boring and there was nothing interesting.

 

I've tried the second video. I've watched the first part : talky and techy science-fiction. Though it's not an official genre, I've listened to understand what he meant. About the "talky" part, the guy should be happy : the ending isn't about fighting a boss, it's a discussion. For the "techy" part, maybe I'm wrong but that part is in the codex, which means that it's not Shepard who read the details about how everything works. I don't remember seeing Shepard asking for technical answers, what I remember is just for basic answers, a basic understanding in order to act. The real technical part is read by the player. The details that make the player immerse in the Mass Effect universe are read by the player. In the narration, I don't remember Shepard doing that. He is just a "soldier". So if I'm right, then it's normal Shepard didn't ask the A.I. how it worked? Because he knew enough to choose. It's the player who wanted more than what is enough.

And maybe I'm wrong here, but the codex didn't give details on everything. There isn't an technical explanation for everything. 

Then this guy said also things about Socrates. Maybe he never read Plato but Socrates purpose is to find the truth. So if you start to apply it to Mass Effect it would mean that all the discussion would lead to one answer. You can't have different answer, possibilities of understanding. For instance, let's take the "the synthetics are alive?" discussion in the Normandy. If it was a Socrates discussion, in the end we would have one answer which would be related to the Plato's philosophy (realm of idea and realm of matter,etc...), but in Mass Effect you can make a choice, having different outcomes, the conclusion isn't the same. So no, it doesn't work. This guy only used Socrates name to sound smart, Socrates method (maieutics) can't be separed from his philosophy. He should have said nothing about Socrates and only talk about the method. "A more elabored way of what socrates used to do" : that's just populism!  This guy only show his ignorance. How could a TV show like Star Trek which has a very basic narration, a very basic philosophy, how could this be more elaborated than one of the greatest philosophers? Seriously? It's not because it takes more time that it's more elaborated.

I couldn't watch entirely the video. I stopped after the first part. I thought that characters focus would be worst.

[DSiKn355]

Sorry, very busy lately.

 

^No worries mate

 

They did but it seems to be details for most people who dislike the way Bioware have made it. These details make low EMS and high EMS destroy very different.

 

 

 

Ok you'll play with the extended cut so you'll have the closure and an implicit scene that makes you understand that Shepard survived. Hope you'll enjoy it because I think that it fits to your expectations.

 

 

I've tried to watch the videos you've posted. The first can't be taken seriously : when your first argument is that Bioware don't have to care about those who will start Mass Effect with Mass Effect 3, that's ridiculously stupid. Some people started with Mass Effect 2 because they couldn't play Mass Effect 1 or they didn't want to play it. A trilogy (video game or film) is always made so that newcomers can watch/play it without starting from the beginning. Mass Effect is like any other trilogy, what he is complaining about can be applied to any trilogy. Thinking that you have to ignore people that would try to play it from Mass Effect 3 is selfish customer's opinion. I stopped at 4 or 5 minutes, his video was boring and there was nothing interesting.

 

I've tried the second video. I've watched the first part : talky and techy science-fiction. Though it's not an official genre, I've listened to understand what he meant. About the "talky" part, the guy should be happy : the ending isn't about fighting a boss, it's a discussion. For the "techy" part, maybe I'm wrong but that part is in the codex, which means that it's not Shepard who read the details about how everything works. I don't remember seeing Shepard asking for technical answers, what I remember is just for basic answers, a basic understanding in order to act. The real technical part is read by the player. The details that make the player immerse in the Mass Effect universe are read by the player. In the narration, I don't remember Shepard doing that. He is just a "soldier". So if I'm right, then it's normal Shepard didn't ask the A.I. how it worked? Because he knew enough to choose. It's the player who wanted more than what is enough.

And maybe I'm wrong here, but the codex didn't give details on everything. There isn't an technical explanation for everything. 

Then this guy said also things about Socrates. Maybe he never read Plato but Socrates purpose is to find the truth. So if you start to apply it to Mass Effect it would mean that all the discussion would lead to one answer. You can't have different answer, possibilities of understanding. For instance, let's take the "the synthetics are alive?" discussion in the Normandy. If it was a Socrates discussion, in the end we would have one answer which would be related to the Plato's philosophy (realm of idea and realm of matter,etc...), but in Mass Effect you can make a choice, having different outcomes, the conclusion isn't the same. So no, it doesn't work. This guy only used Socrates name to sound smart, Socrates method (maieutics) can't be separed from his philosophy. He should have said nothing about Socrates and only talk about the method. "A more elabored way of what socrates used to do" : that's just populism!  This guy only show his ignorance. How could a TV show like Star Trek which has a very basic narration, a very basic philosophy, how could this be more elaborated than one of the greatest philosophers? Seriously? It's not because it takes more time that it's more elaborated.

I couldn't watch entirely the video. I stopped after the first part. I thought that characters focus would be worst.

 

First vid wasn't the one I wanted you to see lol.

Like I said that one was jokes but hits some minor plothole points that are funny like Joker cracking his fingers despite suffering from brittle bone disease lol.

 

No but the 2nd and 3rd vids cover the topic you was talking about "The Narrative" so I thought it would do you good to see it.

 

But concerning the highlighted text:

 

I am pretty sure Shepard was concerned about "how it works/What it does" when talking to Liara.

 

And are you saying you don't believe the game is character focused?

 

Because if you are I would have to disagree with you there.

 

A lot of focus is on the characters, relationships, racial troubles/divides, ME2's Loyalty missions learning of your crew's past and attempting to help with their troubles.

 

Not much focus on shepard himself as you only get what you read on his bio but the characters of your crew it is definitely focused on I would say.

[angol fear]

First vid wasn't the one I wanted you to see lol.

Like I said that one was jokes but hits some minor plothole points that are funny like Joker cracking his fingers despite suffering from brittle bone disease lol.

 

No but the 2nd and 3rd vids cover the topic you was talking about "The Narrative" so I thought it would do you good to see it.

 

But concerning the highlighted text:

 

I am pretty sure Shepard was concerned about "how it works/What it does" when talking to Liara.

 

And are you saying you don't believe the game is character focused?

 

Because if you are I would have to disagree with you there.

 

A lot of focus is on the characters, relationships, racial troubles/divides, ME2's Loyalty missions learning of your crew's past and attempting to help with their troubles.

 

Not much focus on shepard himself as you only get what you read on his bio but the characters of your crew it is definitely focused on I would say.

 

Yes he was concerned like anyone could be concerned : Is it a superweapon that is like a canon, a bomb etc...? So yes he needs to know how it works to understand how he would act. That's implicit but that how I see that. In the end, the A.I. gives enough informations to know it works = what he has to do to make it work.

But do you agree that the codex is made for the player, so the details given are not read by Shepard?  The same with planets description that give the player clues about Mass Effect but are not supposed to be clues given to Shepard.

 

And for the second part, no I'm not saying that Mass Effect never focused on characters. It was and mostly in Mass Effect 2 but it's a part of the narration, he shouldn't have made as if it was the most important part. That's not how it worked in Mass Effect 1.

 

Edit : What I mean is that characters are part of the structure. If someone impose that the characters are the most important part, then it's a game like the Sims he's playing. Mass Effect 2 focused a lot on his characters but the story has almost disappeared, and the narration is not very well done. Mass Effect 1 and Mass Effect 3 are not that focused on their characters : the story is developed and the characters are part of it. Mass Effect isn't character focused it's a story where characters are developed. That's not the same thing at all. Mass Effect 2 is characters focused, but Mass Effect 2 isn't the trilogy, it's not the first one, it doesn't establish the basis of the trilogy.

Sure the characters are important but we can't separated them from the narration.

[DSiKn355]

Yes he was concerned as anyone could be concerned : Is it a superweapon that is like a canon, a bomb etc...? So yes he needs to know how it works to understand how he would act. That's implicit but that how I see that. In the end, the A.I. gives enough informations to know it works = what he has to do to make it work.

 

And for the second part, no I'm not saying that Mass Effect never focused on characters. It was and mostly in Mass Effect 2 but it's a part of the narration, he shouldn't have made as if it was the most important part. That's not how it worked in Mass Effect 1.

 

So you would say the narration is focused more so on the reapers then?

 

It's definitely the plot or end game intended (Stop the Reapers).

 

And I understand you see it as just a story and that it will continue regardless of how your crew is (dead/alive/loyal/disloyal)

I understand.

 

But as a player and not just a reader your attention/focus in on other things.

 

It's why I said storytelling is done differently depending on the format (movie/book/game)

 

Your focus as a player is your interactions with the characters not "got to stop the reapers"

When you was trying to find evidence against Saren there was no reveal or focus on reapers,

When you are doing loyalty missions you aint thinking about reapers.

When you are choosing a love interest you aint thinking about reapers.

when your chilling with Garrus or other crew members you aint thinking about reapers.

 

As a player your focus is on your journey and your journey is made up of interactions and decisions.

 

So the storytelling is focused differently thus needs to cover these points as its now important to the narrative.

[angol fear]

It's why I said storytelling is done differently depending on the format (movie/book/game)

 

Your focus as a player is your interactions with the characters not "got to stop the reapers"

When you was trying to find evidence against Saren there was no reveal or focus on reapers,

When you are doing loyalty missions you aint thinking about reapers.

When you are choosing a love interest you aint thinking about reapers.

when your chilling with Garrus or other crew members you aint thinking about reapers.

 

As a player your focus is on your journey and your journey is made up of interactions and decisions.

 

So the storytelling is focused differently thus needs to cover these points as its now important to the narrative.

 

I agree that you aren't focused on the reapers during the whole trilogy.

But when you try to find evidence, you have to deal with other characters but you have of story related purpose : stop Saren to stop the reapers.

For the loyalty missions, I disliked them, most were uninteresting. Personnaly, I think that the loyalty mission should have been integrated to the recruitment missions. But I feel that they did that in order to make the player play during about 40 hours instead of 20 hours. So yes that part is totally character focused, but that part is, for me, a bad part of Mass Effect.

The love interest is optional. Sure it makes the player being more invested in the game. People prefer love story to any other story so it helps people to like the trilogy but Mass Effect isn't about that. It's not a dating game.

But yes, your relation ( which is actually Shepard's) with other character has nothing to do with the reapers. But it's not the most important part of the game. It's an important part, sure but if you separate it from the narration while it's actually part of it, you ignore a lot of things about the writing. You focuse your attention on one part and ignore the writing.

[DSiKn355]

I agree that you aren't focused on the reapers during the whole trilogy.

But when you try to find evidence, you have to deal with other characters but you have of story related purpose : stop Saren to stop the reapers.

For the loyalty missions, I disliked them, most were uninteresting. Personnaly, I think that the loyalty mission should have been integrated to the recruitment missions. But I feel that they did that in order to make the player play during about 40 hours instead of 20 hours. So yes that part is totally character focused, but that part is, for me, a bad part of Mass Effect.

The love interest is optional. Sure it makes the player being more invested in the game. People prefer love story to any other story so it helps people to like the trilogy but Mass Effect isn't about that. It's not a dating game.

But yes, your relation ( which is actually Shepard's) with other character has nothing to do with the reapers. But it's not the most important part of the game. It's an important part, sure but if you separate it from the narration while it's actually part of it, you ignore a lot of things about the writing. You focuse your attention on one part and ignore the writing.

 

Yeah I understand you but the problem you have is that you are ignoring the game aspect and only focusing on "The writing of the story" Which I already said

"It's not a book, it's a Game."

 

The story may work wonders as a book but this is a game.

Just like some stories are amazing as a book but once it makes it to the big screen the movie is crap because the visuals doesn't match the reader's concepts.

 

So for the storyline of a game to work it has to work as a game and not just as a story otherwise quit the game and write a book instead.

 

Other amazing games based on choices are:

 

Heavy Rain

Beyond two souls

Walking dead 1&2

The wolf among us

 

Yes these game have a overall plot and end game (Heavy rain has 6 different endings though)

 

But the main focus is the interactions and decisions as that is the core of your journey,

You can't move from beginning to end without it.

It is essential for any game like this.

And they are bloody brilliant games storywise too because the story flows with the game and everything that you do.

[fraggle]

So changes had to be made for things to make more sense, fix plotholes and for people to actually survive I guess.

 

Ok I guess I will have to force myself at some point to play through again and do destroy with high EMS (currently 3293) and see if its more satisfying lol

 

Ah well, both pre-EC ending and EC ending work fine within themselves if you treat them as separate/alternative timelines. Things don't make less or more sense in EC than in non-EC, they're just treated differently. Imo.

 

Your current EMS should already be sufficient for that I think it's somewhere around 3100-3200 to get the "best" ending. Btw the EMS to get the best ending was also lowered in EC because people needed to actually play multiplayer in the original ending to get the highest score and the breathing scene afaik.

[DSiKn355]

Ah well, both pre-EC ending and EC ending work fine within themselves if you treat them as separate/alternative timelines. Things don't make less or more sense in EC than in non-EC, they're just treated differently. Imo.

 

Your current EMS should already be sufficient for that I think it's somewhere around 3100-3200 to get the "best" ending. Btw the EMS to get the best ending was also lowered in EC because people needed to actually play multiplayer in the original ending to get the highest score and the breathing scene afaik.

 

For me the Catalyst's logic doesn't make sense.

 

Catalyst: I was created eons ago to solve a problem.
Sheperd: What problem is that?
Catalyst: To prevent organics from creating an AI so powerful that it would overtake them and destroy them
Sheperd: But that's exactly what you're doing
Catalyst: Not exactly. The Reapers harvest fully developed civilizations, leaving the less developed ones intact. Just as we left your species when we were here last.
Sheperd: But you killed the rest...

 

This dialogue ruined everything as it made the Reapers just come across as stupid despite their creation from a higher intellect as they are just hypocritical in their actions.

 

The Catalyst then says...

 

Catalyst: We harvested them. We brought order to the chaos. We helped them ascend and become one of us, allowing new life to flourish, while preserving the old life forever in Reaper form.

 

Did the writers forget about ME2?

The Human Reaper being made?

The humans liquidized to fuel the reaper?

 

Help? Not that's called forced lol.

 

If you preserve life it would mean to keep that life intact not liquidize it.

 

So for me the Catalyst never made sense lol.

[fraggle]

The Catalyst was tasked to preserve life at any costs. After studying various cycles he came up with the solution of Reapers, in which the essence of each race is stored, and thus preserved (As you mentioned ME2, this happens there as well, as it wants to store human essence in the Baby Reaper). That means it achieved its original goal and doesn't see anything wrong with it.

As the Catalyst controls the Reapers, yes, they are just tools for the Catalyst (which for me was quite cool to see and maybe even sympathise a bit with them. That's personal taste though and I'm sure I'm pretty much alone with my opinion on them )

 

"If you preserve life it would mean to keep that life intact not liquidize it."

Each organic race that's ever been harvested was stored in a new Reaper, thus preserved, as it was tasked. So the Catalyst's logic makes sense?

[Vazgen]

I suggest to talk to Javik a lot. That guy is basically a walking foreshadowing of the endings. He brings an explanation for how liquefying people preserves them (experience is a biological marker, as is knowledge and skill), he talks about synthetics vs organics conflict more than once, he even mentions a Synthesis-style race in their cycle.

The thing about the endings is that they require full package to make sense of. Books, comics, codex, dialogue, DLC - the player has to have access and pay attention to all of them. Which is why they failed, because the vast majority of the players doesn't have access or care about some of those. Of course, they also failed at execution of some of the aspects of the endings for which I blame time and budget constraints. 

[DSiKn355]

The Catalyst was tasked to preserve life at any costs. After studying various cycles he came up with the solution of Reapers, in which the essence of each race is stored, and thus preserved (As you mentioned ME2, this happens there as well, as it wants to store human essence in the Baby Reaper). That means it achieved its original goal and doesn't see anything wrong with it.

As the Catalyst controls the Reapers, yes, they are just tools for the Catalyst (which for me was quite cool to see and maybe even sympathise a bit with them. That's personal taste though and I'm sure I'm pretty much alone with my opinion on them )

 

"If you preserve life it would mean to keep that life intact not liquidize it."

Each organic race that's ever been harvested was stored in a new Reaper, thus preserved, as it was tasked. So the Catalyst's logic makes sense?

 

Tell me if someone took someone you know and stuck them in a gigantic blender and then kept then in a jar in a freezer would you call that preserving life?

 

To me being kept in a cryosleep or stasis for an eternity would be preserving life as at some point that life could be continued.

 

Keeping DNA is just keeping DNA. That's not preserving life.

 

pre·serve

 (prĭ-zûrv′)

v. pre·served, pre·serv·ing, pre·serves

v.tr.

1. To keep from injury, peril, or harm; protect. See Synonyms at defend.

2. To keep in perfect or unaltered condition; maintain unchanged: fossils preserved in sediments; a film preserved in the archives.

3. To keep or maintain intact: tried to preserve family harmony.

4. To prepare (food) for storage or future use, as by canning or salting.

5. To prevent (organic bodies) from decaying or spoiling: preserved the specimen in a chemical solution.

6.

a. To protect (wildlife or natural resources) in a designated area, often for regulated hunting or fishing.

b. To maintain (an area) for the protection of wildlife or natural resources.

v.intr.

1. To treat fruit or other foods so as to prevent decay.

2. To maintain an area for the protection of wildlife or natural resources.

n.

1. Something that acts to preserve; a preservative.

2. often preserves Fruit cooked with sugar to protect against decay or fermentation.

3. An area maintained for the protection of wildlife or natural resources.

4. Something considered as being the exclusive province of certain persons:

 

For just incase lol.

 

I suggest to talk to Javik a lot. That guy is basically a walking foreshadowing of the endings. He brings an explanation for how liquefying people preserves them (experience is a biological marker, as is knowledge and skill), he talks about synthetics vs organics conflict more than once, he even mentions a Synthesis-style race in their cycle.

The thing about the endings is that they require full package to make sense of. Books, comics, codex, dialogue, DLC - the player has to have access and pay attention to all of them. Which is why they failed, because the vast majority of the players doesn't have access or care about some of those. Of course, they also failed at execution of some of the aspects of the endings for which I blame time and budget constraints. 

 

Yeah making all info inaccessable is a fail no argument.

 

"how liquefying people preserves them (experience is a biological marker, as is knowledge and skill)" That is the ingame logic?

 

Nah that's stupid and a plothole here is why....

 

Leviathan's were larger and a Reaper is the same size so its a direct organic synthetic hybrid.

 

Humans are not large and thus were liqufied to be stored in the robotic reaper (breaks reaper specs of being a hybrid lol)

 

And the protheons.... HAVE NO REAPER! They remain (mostly) intact and then just altered to accommodate the organic synthetic hybrid reaper theme.

 

Why couldn't this happen to humans? Why must they be a power source for a giant machine?