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?
Actually the cycles started when Catalyst created the first reaper which was Harbinger.
Catalyst hasn't achieved its goal in this cycle because Shepard destroyed the human reaper in ME2. Besides Catalyst's ultimate goal is to create a reaper who has a mind of that species. It hasn't been able to create that since Harbinger so its solution isn't perfect and it is going to try to achieve that in this cycle too like in all the cycles before.
Actually the cycles started when Catalyst created the first reaper which was Harbinger.
Catalyst hasn't achieved its goal in this cycle because Shepard destroyed the human reaper in ME2. Besides Catalyst's ultimate goal is to create a reaper who has a mind of that species. It hasn't been able to create that since Harbinger so its solution isn't perfect and it is going to try to achieve that in this cycle too like in all the cycles before.
Maybe because no human has a brain THAT big lol.
The Leviathan can be that size because they ARE that size.
Human's aint just like Protheons aint and the Protheons never had no reaper right?
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.
[...]
"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 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?
I never said I agree with the Catalyst's solution/logic. I don't. But I do not see a problem for how it decided to preserve organics in that way. Meaning: I understand why it chose to do so, but I would never have done that myself.
In addition, we don't know which solutions it tried before, but it were many, it states it even tried something like Synthesis but failed back then. So yes, the Catalyst chose the Reapers as its solution, and it is entitled to do so. It's like having to accept a decision made by people in real life. You may not agree with it, but ultimately you have to accept or respect this decision.
Maybe this helps as well, an approach to understand what the intention of the Reapers/Catalyst is:
"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....
This is NOT a plothole. Just because you don't like the way this thing is represented doesn't mean it's wrong. Ok, you think it's stupid, fine, I can accept that. But the story was set up this way, so you have to take the devs explanation about it. You don't need to like it, but please don't argue against it if it's explained.
Your arguing about different sizes... I suggest you read the wiki:
The Reaper story by itself isn't that interesting. There's not much you can do with that story that hasn't been done hundreds of times. It goes all the way back to the cheesy Flash Gordon days of science fiction.
Then do you know a story that hasn't been done hundreds of time? From Gilgamesh till contemporary literature everything has been said. Homer used almost every narration tools/ devices and it was in the Antiquity. If you're looking for originality in stories, you'll never find. Shakespeare himself do not tell original stories (Is the story of Romeo and Juliet interesting?).
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.
You don't get what I mean, so basically, the story is the events, the narration is the structure of the events (characters are part of it), the writing is larger including intentions, aesthetics. So the writing of the game isn't only narration and characters, it includes the gameplay, the codex, how and for who it is done, the possibilities etc... The writing of the game is what makes the game being a game and not a book or a film. The narration is what make the game close to cinema and books, the writing is what makes it very different.
A video game has to have a gameplay which is related to the storytelling, that's part of the writing I'm talking about.
But I don't remember saying "writing of the story" because that's the narration and when I use the word writing is to talk about something larger that includes the gameplay.
I've played Heavy rain, beyond two souls, Walking dead 1. Walking dead do not have a gameplay related to its story. That's a problem for me. But maybe it is not for you. Walking dead is about choices that do not matter. Whatever you do you really have the same thing. There is no purpose behind it, no theme/story or anything related. That's a problem for me. The gameplay and the narration can't be separated, that's the writing of the game. Sorry I didn't like Walking dead. I've found Heavy rain to be an overestimated game : the narration has a lot of problems. Beyond two souls wanted to use a non linear structure but it didn't work because of stupid scenes where you couldn't have any real difference, once again your choice didn't matter and you even didn't have a single difference between the choices you made, you couldn't escape the bad movie's writing of some scene (sometimes I felt like watching a bad movie of the 80's).
I'm sorry but Mass Effect has got a gameplay that is justified by the narration, I can't say the same for the video games on that list.
If you really want to see an impressive game in its writing, I suggest you to play Bloodborne. The story seems to be basic, the narration seems to be almost inexistant, but it isn't that, really. Everything is implicit and the gameplay is justified by the narration.
Edit : so just to be a little more clear. In a game where you have to save the galaxy and someone says that the galaxy can wait, he will follow you only if you find his father/ destroy the prison where she has been etc... So yes, that gives you gameplay scene but it's a little bit ridiculous? That's character focused part, that's something people liked in mass effect 2, but seriously were you expecting that from the game when you played Mass Effect 1? Sure you liked the interactions (I really did), but it was story related. In Mass Effect 2 you have to deal with some personal problems that has nothing to do with the story. I didn't play Mass Effect for that, I played it because there was a story with character that were quite well developed for a video game, and I could interact with them. But no I didn't play the game to forget the story and just have interactions (basically Mass Effect 2). That's why when I saw that second part of the video entitled "character focus" I thought that the guy was actually a Mass Effect 2 player who didn't care about the story, and wanted to play Mass Effect as if it was the Sims in a science fiction context. If the title of the second part was the characters and the narration, I would not be afraid of watching it!
The Leviathan can be that size because they ARE that size.
Human's aint just like Protheons aint and the Protheons never had no reaper right?
Convenient plotholes are convenient lol
I don't think that the brain size is the issue when creating a reaper with a mind of that species. I think the problem is that they would have to take a mind of a person and put that into a reaper which is partly organic and partly machine. Although it's possible that because Harbinger was the first reaper which had been ever made then the process of making him was different that the process of making reapers in this cycle.
I remember vaguely that in ME2 you found out that reapers didn't make prothean reaper because of a punishment.
Logic may be different but the english word has a set meaning and definition otherwise use a different word lol
Except that the AI thinks that it's preserving organics so using that word in that context makes sense.
You're right of course, I meant to say it studied several civilizations.
I never said I agree with the Catalyst's solution/logic. I don't. But I do not see a problem for how it decided to preserve organics in that way. Meaning: I understand why it chose to do so, but I would never have done that myself.
In addition, we don't know which solutions it tried before, but it were many, it states it even tried something like Synthesis but failed back then. So yes, the Catalyst chose the Reapers as its solution, and it is entitled to do so. It's like having to accept a decision made by people in real life. You may not agree with it, but ultimately you have to accept or respect this decision.
Maybe this helps as well, an approach to understand what the intention of the Reapers/Catalyst is:
"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....
This is NOT a plothole. Just because you don't like the way this thing is represented doesn't mean it's wrong. Ok, you think it's stupid, fine, I can accept that. But the story was set up this way, so you have to take the devs explanation about it. You don't need to like it, but please don't argue against it if it's explained.
Your arguing about different sizes... I suggest you read the wiki:
"Why couldn't this happen to humans? Why must they be a power source for a giant machine?"
What, you want humans to be turned into Reaper slaves as they did to the Protheans? That's not exactly a better way, is it? Both are horrible ways.
Here you will find a plothole.
"We have no beginning"
Here is another or a hypocrisy
"The battle of Rannoch disproves your assertion"
Yet the peace achieved doesn't disprove theirs?
Then do you know a story that hasn't been done hundreds of time? From Gilgamesh till contemporary literature everything has been said. Homer used almost every narration tools/ devices and it was in the Antiquity. If you're looking for originality in stories, you'll never find. Shakespeare himself do not tell original stories (Is the story of Romeo and Juliet interesting?).
You don't get what I mean, so basically, the story is the events, the narration is the structure of the events (characters are part of it), the writing is larger including intentions, aesthetics. So the writing of the game isn't only narration and characters, it includes the gameplay, the codex, how and for who it is done, the possibilities etc... The writing of the game is what makes the game being a game and not a book or a film. The narration is what make the game close to cinema and books, the writing is what makes it very different.
A video game has to have a gameplay which is related to the storytelling, that's part of the writing I'm talking about.
But I don't remember saying "writing of the story" because that's the narration and when I use the word writing is to talk about something larger that includes the gameplay.
I've played Heavy rain, beyond two souls, Walking dead 1. Walking dead do not have a gameplay related to its story. That's a problem for me. But maybe it is not for you. Walking dead is about choices that do not matter. Whatever you do you really have the same thing. There is no purpose behind it, no theme/story or anything related. That's a problem for me. The gameplay and the narration can't be separated, that's the writing of the game. Sorry I didn't like Walking dead. I've found Heavy rain to be an overestimated game : the narration has a lot of problems. Beyond two souls wanted to use a non linear structure but it didn't work because of stupid scenes where you couldn't have any real difference, once again your choice didn't matter and you even didn't have a single difference between the choices you made, you couldn't escape the bad movie's writing of some scene (sometimes I felt like watching a bad movie of the 80's).
I'm sorry but Mass Effect has got a gameplay that is justified by the narration, I can't say the same for the video games on that list.
If you really want to see an impressive game in its writing, I suggest you to play Bloodborne. The story seems to be basic, the narration seems to be almost inexistant, but it isn't that, really. Everything is implicit and the gameplay is justified by the narration.
Edit : so just to be a little more clear. In a game where you have to save the galaxy and someone says that the galaxy can wait, he will follow you only if you find his father/ destroy the prison where she has been etc... So yes, that gives you gameplay scene but it's a little bit ridiculous? That's character focused part, that's something people liked in mass effect 2, but seriously were you expecting that from the game when you played Mass Effect 1? Sure you liked the interactions (I really did), but it was story related. In Mass Effect 2 you have to deal with some personal problems that has nothing to do with the story. I didn't play Mass Effect for that, I played it because there was a story with character that were quite well developed for a video game, and I could interact with them. But no I didn't play the game to forget the story and just have interactions (basically Mass Effect 2). That's why when I saw that second part of the video entitled "character focus" I thought that the guy was actually a Mass Effect 2 player who didn't care about the story, and wanted to play Mass Effect as if it was the Sims in a science fiction context. If the title of the second part was the characters and the narration, I would not be afraid of watching it!
All I get from you is that your a die hard fan of the series and nothing compares in your eyes so there is absolutely no faults to it in your mind lol.
I don't think that the brain size is the issue when creating a reaper with a mind of that species. I think the problem is that they would have to take a mind of a person and put that into a reaper which is partly organic and partly machine. Although it's possible that because Harbinger was the first reaper which had been ever made then the process of making him was different that the process of making reapers in this cycle.
I remember vaguely that in ME2 you found out that reapers didn't make prothean reaper because of a punishment.
Except that the AI thinks that it's preserving organics so using that word in that context makes sense.
All I get from you is that your a die hard fan of the series and nothing compares in your eyes so there is absolutely no faults to it in your mind lol.
No fault? I said that Mass Effect 2 has a lot of problems.
If you disagree with me on the fact that Mass Effect isn't supposed to character focused but it was supposed to be story focused with characters development, then you have to explain me why the visual of Mass Effect 1 is cinematic? You must have noticed that Mass Effect 1 has got a filter that do give the player a cinema feeling.
It's also the narration that gives the cinema feeling. You can't deny that this aspect is very strong in the first game.
Catalyst is an AI so its logic is different than ours.
To me the Catalyst was created to preserve the Apex species, not protect it at all costs - opens the door to "Ascension". Synthesis and Control continued this line of thought, Destroy was merely an end to its processes - and as we saw the Catalyst had no "human-like" self-preservationist instincts (unlike say rogue AI in 2001 or Colossus). For the reapers themselves, their view of the universe is through "Ascension", it's understandable that creation has no meaning to them, and to them peace means nothing because the Catalyst wasn't created to compromise.
To me the Catalyst was created to preserve the Apex species, not protect it at all costs - opens the door to "Ascension". Synthesis and Control continued this line of thought, Destroy was merely an end to its processes - and as we saw the Catalyst had no "human-like" self-preservationist instincts (unlike say rogue AI in 2001 or Colossus). For the reapers themselves, their view of the universe is through "Ascension", it's understandable that creation has no meaning to them, and to them peace means nothing because the Catalyst wasn't created to compromise.
I agree that Catalyst was created to preserve life at all costs.
Catalyst had no "human-like" self-preservation instincts? Where did we find that out? I don't remember anything like that. Anyway my "problem" with the ending is that because I think that Catalyst's main purpose is to preserve life at all cost and its solution is reapers then why would it let you to decide the fate of the galaxy and possibly let you destroy its solution? I mean it brings you there to decide and it wants you to decide. That's why the ending as it is doesn't make any sense to me and because of that I don't believe that the ending should be interpret as it is. However the endings can be seen as you said but I'm not convinced that the AI would just let you there and give you an opportunity to destroy everything because that isn't what it wants or more likely is programmed to do.
I agree that Catalyst was created to preserve life at all costs.
Catalyst had no "human-like" self-preservation instincts? Where did we find that out? I don't remember anything like that. Anyway my "problem" with the ending is that because I think that Catalyst's main purpose is to preserve life at all cost and its solution is reapers then why would it let you to decide the fate of the galaxy and possibly let you destroy its solution? I mean it brings you there to decide and it wants you to decide. That's why the ending as it is doesn't make any sense to me and because of that I don't believe that the ending should be interpret as it is. However the endings can be seen as you said but I'm not convinced that the AI would just let you there and give you an opportunity to destroy everything because that isn't what it wants or more likely is programmed to do.
When the Catalyst was open to other solutions, that spoke to me of lack of self-preservationist instincts. As for it being open at all and letting you decide, i'll quote myself from another thread: "The way I interpreted things is that the Catalyst and the entire Reaper threat was a costly mistake, the Catalyst simply couldn't understand that and needed an outside POV to grant it purpose once its cycle programming was threatened with a new variable (the Crucible). I did admire that the Catalyst attempted to find solutions to a problem it created, but it was simply doing what it was programmed to do and nothing more."
Anyway my "problem" with the ending is that because I think that Catalyst's main purpose is to preserve life at all cost and its solution is reapers then why would it let you to decide the fate of the galaxy and possibly let you destroy its solution? I mean it brings you there to decide and it wants you to decide. That's why the ending as it is doesn't make any sense to me and because of that I don't believe that the ending should be interpret as it is. However the endings can be seen as you said but I'm not convinced that the AI would just let you there and give you an opportunity to destroy everything because that isn't what it wants or more likely is programmed to do.
I thought letting Shepard take over was a combination of the Crucible and Shepard actually arriving and meeting the Catalyst. It states Shepard has hope because he/she arrived here as the first organic ever, and that it proves that the Catalyst's solution doesn't work anymore. It says "We find a new solution." As in Shepard and it. In the EC ending, Shepard asks "Why help me?" and the Catalyst states that the variables were changed, that the Crucible changed it, thus I take it it kind of reprogrammed the Catalyst, making new solutions possible and the Catalyst just has to go along with it.
I thought letting Shepard take over was a combination of the Crucible and Shepard actually arriving and meeting the Catalyst. It states Shepard has hope because he/she arrived here as the first organic ever, and that it proves that the Catalyst's solution doesn't work anymore. It says "We find a new solution." As in Shepard and it. In the EC ending, Shepard asks "Why help me?" and the Catalyst states that the variables were changed, that the Crucible changed it, thus I take it it kind of reprogrammed the Catalyst, making new solutions possible and the Catalyst just has to go along with it.
It makes sense that the combination of Shepard and Crucible would change the variables so that there are new solutions available. Although I think it also means that the AI has designed Crucible and let organics to build it because how could they have ever thought about creating something like that? We also know that Catalyst knew about Crucible and did nothing to destroy that. I think one interesting question is why? Why did it do it? Why is it so important that an organics will build Crucible and then somebody go to Citadel and meet Catalyst and choose one of the choices? I don't remember anymore what was the reason why Catalyst couldn't choose.
It makes sense that the combination of Shepard and Crucible would change the variables so that there are new solutions available. Although I think it also means that the AI has designed Crucible and let organics to build it because how could they have ever thought about creating something like that? We also know that Catalyst knew about Crucible and did nothing to destroy that. I think one interesting question is why? Why did it do it? Why is it so important that an organics will build Crucible and then somebody go to Citadel and meet Catalyst and choose one of the choices? I don't remember anymore what was the reason why Catalyst couldn't choose.
When Shepard asks who designed the Crucible the Catalyst says Shepard wouldn't know them, so we know that several cycles already knew about/added to the Crucible (I think this is also mentioned by Vendetta, the Prothean VI on Thessia/later in Cronos Station). Unfortunately we don't know how many cycles were involved, but I'm assuming a lot, so if there were some really brilliant races working on it throughout countless cycles, I can find it believable they found out how to make it work.
Yeah, the question as to why the Crucible was never destroyed is a good one. The Catalyst says that they discovered the concept for it several cycles ago, but they thought its concept had been eradicated. I'm not a native speaker, but could "eradicted" mean here that maybe the cycles hid the Crucibles' concept/plans well enough so the Catalyst didn't notice it was still present? Or does it really simply mean that they assumed this device would not work properly?
(Ok, I just checked the wiki:
"Several cycles before the present harvest, the Catalyst became aware of a concept that could potentially be used to destroy the Reapers. It attempted to eradicate this concept, unaware that the idea evolved and survived into the present in the form of the Crucible."
I just really don't remember right now where it was stated the Catalyst attempted to eradicate the concept. Also the Catalyst clearly states they knew the concept evolved before, so is the wiki wrong on this?)
I think the Catalyst can't choose any new solution because of the altered variables/docking of the Crucible. It's able to present the choices to someone else, but not able to perform them itself.
I just really don't remember right now where it was stated the Catalyst attempted to eradicate the concept. Also the Catalyst clearly states they knew the concept evolved before, so is the wiki wrong on this?)
He says that "we believed the concept have been eradicated. Clearly, the organics are more resourceful than we realized".
No fault? I said that Mass Effect 2 has a lot of problems.
If you disagree with me on the fact that Mass Effect isn't supposed to character focused but it was supposed to be story focused with characters development, then you have to explain me why the visual of Mass Effect 1 is cinematic? You must have noticed that Mass Effect 1 has got a filter that do give the player a cinema feeling.
It's also the narration that gives the cinema feeling. You can't deny that this aspect is very strong in the first game.
No you see you deny ME2 because it goes against your preconceived idea. It brakes your argument so your response is...
"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."
So you are denying it because it doesn't fit what you want.
And how you denied the games I listed lmao.
Seriously?
"Walking dead do not have a gameplay related to its story"
really? Because CLEARLY you have not finished the series by playing part 2 lol.
"I've found Heavy rain to be an overestimated game : the narration has a lot of problems."
Such as?
"Beyond two souls wanted to use a non linear structure but it didn't work because of stupid scenes where you couldn't have any real difference"
Really? That's your complaint? let me show you what you said about the Mass Effect series...
"First, philosophycally, choice are absence of freedom. You have to know that to understand the writing.
Second, you may have noticed that there are different level of influence. Your choices can change some details in the story but can't chance the overall story. The reapers are at a level that you have no influence. The story is at a level that you have no influence."
So no real difference is ok for Mass Effect but not other games?
That my friend is your biased fan view
ME1 painted the Reapers as killing machine which wipe out a race "to extinction" not preserve! And then harvest what they need which pointed towards the high level tech that races produce to continue to sustain these Machines not "hybrids" as it tries to convince us of later in ME3.
Saren even said that if he willing works for the Reapers it would save their race as they would be given a place amongst the reapers.
Was this what ME3 backed up and verified?
Did ME3 stay true to this?
No it didn't lol.
And yes ME1 has a design to come across as a movie but a movie has this thing called drama and how can you build drama without first knowing the characters?
If you didn't get to know Mordin would his death in ME3 be dramatic? Would it touch you?
Hell no because you don't know him lol.
1. I admit it does look like it, but then there are still other possibilities:
- Yes, it could be a plothole because different writers
- It could be interpreted that the Reapers never knew about the Catalyst (if there is any evidence against this assumption I forgot about it )
- It could simply have lied to you, or was just written to be extra-mysterious
2. Um, I think this conversation with the Reaper happens BEFORE you can actually negotiate peace, so its observation here is not wrong.
1. Thank you and yeah a change of writer is probably the cause of the plothole/plot change.
2.Yes but once you reach the Catalyst it doesn't acknowledge the peace you brokered. It still says "its inevitable" and the rest of the rubbish lol.
I've lost count of how many times I've posted this
Catalyst's statements are absolute. You can't disprove them and any evidence you bring will be dwarfed by its billion+ years of experience.
Shepard asks "But there will be peace?" It answers "Yes. But the peace won't last." It does not reject the possibility of a peace between organics and synthetics. It says that the peace won't last. There is no way to disprove that assertion.
Its other claim "Without us to stop it, the synthetics will destroy all organic life". Again, this is absolute. The only way to disprove that statement is to take a gamble and remove the Reapers from the equation. If they are right you're screwed. If not, you'll have to present comparable evidence to prove it (billion+ years without organic vs synthetic conflict).
I, for one, agree with it on the existence of the conflict. We've seen it in games. Geth, rogue AI on the Presidium, rogue VI in Mass Effect 2. All rebelled and all aimed to destroy organics. Rogue AI on the Presidium blatantly states that: "All organics must destroy or control synthetic life forms".
As for "we have no beginning" it's simply arrogance. Why bother to tell the story of Leviathans and creation of the intelligence to the "rudimentary creatures of blood and flesh"? That comment is aimed to demoralize, not to explain Reaper origins.
I've lost count of how many times I've posted this
Catalyst's statements are absolute. You can't disprove them and any evidence you bring will be dwarfed by its billion+ years of experience.
Shepard asks "But there will be peace?" It answers "Yes. But the peace won't last." It does not reject the possibility of a peace between organics and synthetics. It says that the peace won't last. There is no way to disprove that assertion.
Its other claim "Without us to stop it, the synthetics will destroy all organic life". Again, this is absolute. The only way to disprove that statement is to take a gamble and remove the Reapers from the equation. If they are right you're screwed. If not, you'll have to present comparable evidence to prove it (billion+ years without organic vs synthetic conflict).
I, for one, agree with it on the existence of the conflict. We've seen it in games. Geth, rogue AI on the Presidium, rogue VI in Mass Effect 2. All rebelled and all aimed to destroy organics. Rogue AI on the Presidium blatantly states that: "All organics must destroy or control synthetic life forms".
As for "we have no beginning" it's simply arrogance. Why bother to tell the story of Leviathans and creation of the intelligence to the "rudimentary creatures of blood and flesh"? That comment is aimed to demoralize, not to explain Reaper origins.
An AI created for ultimate species preservation and conflict solving and little else will obviously be absolutist, what information it gathers will be through the lens of whatever purpose it was created for. If it was created for more than that, it would not have allowed you to make any impact. To me it boils down to "to what end is the Catalyst's purpose for even existing in the first place?". To me it was a mistake to be ended, for others it was a tool for two kinds of ascension - nobody is really right or wrong, much like the AI's logic was morally ambiguous.
He says that "we believed the concept have been eradicated. Clearly, the organics are more resourceful than we realized".
Ah yes, I know that sentence, but I always thought - since the Catalyst didn't outright state they eradicated the design - that it was not actually the Catalyst/Reapers who did it. Makes sense of course though
I've lost count of how many times I've posted this
Catalyst's statements are absolute. You can't disprove them and any evidence you bring will be dwarfed by its billion+ years of experience.
Shepard asks "But there will be peace?" It answers "Yes. But the peace won't last." It does not reject the possibility of a peace between organics and synthetics. It says that the peace won't last. There is no way to disprove that assertion.
Its other claim "Without us to stop it, the synthetics will destroy all organic life". Again, this is absolute. The only way to disprove that statement is to take a gamble and remove the Reapers from the equation. If they are right you're screwed. If not, you'll have to present comparable evidence to prove it (billion+ years without organic vs synthetic conflict).
I, for one, agree with it on the existence of the conflict. We've seen it in games. Geth, rogue AI on the Presidium, rogue VI in Mass Effect 2. All rebelled and all aimed to destroy organics. Rogue AI on the Presidium blatantly states that: "All organics must destroy or control synthetic life forms".
As for "we have no beginning" it's simply arrogance. Why bother to tell the story of Leviathans and creation of the intelligence to the "rudimentary creatures of blood and flesh"? That comment is aimed to demoralize, not to explain Reaper origins.
Here is where you are making mistakes.
1. In ME1 onwards all Geth enemies are being controlled by the Reapers and are not trying to wipe out organics of their own accord.
2. Real Geth (legion etc) were NOT trying to wipe out organics only defend themselves from annihilation as when the war started they had organic allies that were Quarians.
3.Rogue AI in ME1 was programmed that way by another "Malfunctioning" AI
4. The rogue VI was a result of...
“Archer’s Log 135.3: For years my brother has been a handicap. That changed today. His autistic mind is the breakthrough I’ve been looking for - - he can communicate with the geth! Such a tremendous grasp of mathematics. It seems serendipity is alive and well in the 22nd century.”
“Archer Log 157.8: Unless he sees results, the Illusive Man is shutting us down next week. I have no choice. I am going to tap David directly into the geth neural network and see if he can influence them. Danger should be negligible. David might even enjoy it.”
“Archer Log 164.4: I’d be lying if I said that no harm could come to David. His autistic mind is just as alien to me as an actual alien. Anything could happen when we plug him in. But I have to try, don’t I?”
Right?
So no AI/VI gained the will to destroy organics of its own accord without interference, Reaper control or a malfunction.
The only machines known to wipe out civilizations until the appearance of the Catalyst is the Reapers.
I understand you are saying that the Catalyst superceeds all previous knowledge and statements but for that to happen that still leave inconsistencies and plotholes.
It's basically...
"Synthetics will end up destroying all life so instead I am using synthetics to destroy all life that is civilized"
And then the biggest plothole in all this
"Your civilization is based on the technology of the mass relays. Our technology. By using it, your civilization develops along the paths we desire."
~ Sovereign
So by that statement alone they could have made all races not that well equipped to create AI and endanger themselves lol.
The Reapers/Catalyst/Intelligence (which ever you feel is responsible) is the cause for all the trouble lmao.
I guess my order of preference is still ME2, ME1, ME3 although ME3 is pretty close to ME1 for me now, as it seems that time has made me forget the feeling I had the first time I got to the ending. But at least there was one choice that made sense and I was able to take every time...
Anyway all the games had their faults, people who care more about one or the other like the games in different proportions.
Personally, I don't think ME1 had the best story necessarily, although perhaps it had the tightest narrative. Those aren't necessarily equivalent. Even though the combat is whonky, I still like playing it sometimes. It has the advantage of introducing this fictional universe, which basically gives it bonus points.
I thought ME2 has the best visual design, even if the textures might not have been as high res. It also has the best music, a decent collection of interesting characters, and the best final mission. The last one really isn't close compared to the other two. It did the best job of differentiating each class, the best job balancing them, and arguably is the most challenging.
ME3 improved the ME2 combat system in a couple areas, but took a few steps back in others. The mechanics are not really improved from ME2, IMO, even if some are convoluted. The only thing they dropped which was good to scrap was the range modifier for weapons. But the combo changes basically just turned the game into combo spam, and weapon mechanics and some uneven weapon balancing made a host of the weapons largely irrelevant off the bat. The narrative has some highs and some lows. I am not really going to rant about the end game plot, but I will point out the other major problem with the end: I don't really find the mission particularly fun or paced correctly.
I love what have been posted lately! Seeing people who give interpretations or trying to find a way to understand it, that's so rare!
@DSikn355,
once again, that's not what I said. Mass Effect 2 is for me a good game that I mostly dislike. The loyalty missions are indeed, for me, a bad part of Mass Effect . You like them, it's ok but seriously when you played Mass Effect 1, did you think "great ! I'll solve personal problems of my squadmates!"? Were you playing for that? (And I noticed that you answered none of my questions!). But I would not remove Mass Effect 2 from the trilogy because the idea behind is interesting, not very well done but interesting. So it doesn't fit to what I want but is Mass Effect 2 the basis of the trilogy? I like interactions and that's a reason why I love Mass Effect but interactions over the story? no.
And for the game you listed :
I talked about Walking dead because you talked about it. I've never post anything about that game, I've never been on the official forum etc... And I dislike the game, I don't see why I would play the second part, I'm not masochist.
Heavy rain has themes that lead nowhere, that are useless. David Cage used them because they were cool. the way you can play can create an incoherent killer, psychologically. That's what I got when I played it. But the game is a good experience, an overestimated game but a real good experience.
Beyond two souls : I've played it because I wanted to see if David Cage could do better than heavy rain (I wanted him to do better!). The game is unbalanced. Some scenes are too short, some are too long. Some are totally useless, some are very important. Do you remember the party? Whatever you do, it always lead to your rejection. I said that in Mass Effect the overall story didn't change, but you choices did change many details (if I say a lot of things, you'll say that I'm a die hard fan). In Beyond two souls, there is almost no cause-consequence because of the structure so the scenes end the same way. The party and the bar scene are just terrible, that's the kind of scene we can see in a bad movie of the 80's. David Cage creates good games but he would be a bad movie maker.
If you don't trust me on the fate theme, here's just one example from the beginning of Mass Effect 1 (at about 26'):
Dr Manuel : No one is saved. the age of humanity is ended. Soon only ruin and corpses will remain.[...] Is it madness to see the future? To see the destruction rushing towards us? To understand there is no escape? No hope? No, I am not mad. I'm the only one sane one left! [...] You cannot silence the truth ! My voice must be heard![...]
And for the "Hybrids" thing, it's Mass Effect 2 's revelation, not Mass Effect 3! (There's almost no story elements in Mass Effect 2, don't remove the only ones it got).
But there is a line which is very interesting in Mass Effect 1 (at about 2'):
Cole (about the noise when Sovereign appeared): It was emitting some kind of signal as it descended. Sounded like the shriek of the damned. Only it was coming from inside your own head.
Mass Effec 2 revealed that the reapers were both organic and synthetic but that line from Mass Effect 1 seems to lead to that.
And for the characters thing you clearly don't want to understand me : characters are part of the narration! Yes drama come from them. But do I need to know how many times the character goes to the toilets everyday? What I mean with that ridiculous question is that it's not because you've spent a lot of time with characters that there will be more drama. It's not because you know everything that there will be more drama. Take a look at Sergio Leone's Once upon a time in america, the death of the kid is really touching, we knew all we needed to know and it was story related, there was no parenthesis that stopped the narration just to have a pseudo psychological aspect. Another example : Tsui Hark's Seven swords, one of the main character has to leave his horse. We've got a very dramatic scene and there was nothing about how the horse lived or anything like this.
Drama exist because characters are part of the narration and the narration makes us know the characters. If the narration is full of parenthesis that lead nowhere and are just here to make you know some things about the characters, that's a problem for me. I'm not saying that there shouldn't have any break in the narration. I'm saying that spending half of the game just to know the characters who has personal problem that are ridiculous if we do a comparison with the situation, that's a problem. We can't justify emptiness by character focus. (Maybe I'm the only one but I didn't like more Jacob after the loyalty mission, and I've already said that but the loyalty mission should have be integrated in the recruitment mission, maybe I wouldn't have that feeling of "Stop that introduction! when do I start the game?").
You are jumping to conclusion... Far fetched ones.
"It was emitting some kind of signal as it descended. Sounded like the shriek of the damned. Only it was coming from inside your own head."
How do you get that it means it is part organic?
What part of that statement sounds like something organic?
Electronic pulses travel around our bodies sending signals and carrying infomation.
The reaper could let out a mild EMP (Electromagnetic pulse) which could be felt inside your head.
That then is a machine causing this.
Machine - the same word repeated throughout ME1 lol.
So please explain your connection to how that statement makes you think the reaper is part organic
And again the plot change:
Dr Manuel : "No one is saved. the age of humanity is ended. Soon only ruin and corpses will remain.[...] Is it madness to see the future? To see the destruction rushing towards us? To understand there is no escape? No hope? No, I am not mad. I'm the only one sane one left! [...] You cannot silence the truth ! My voice must be heard![...]"
But then the plot changed to "Preservation"
I have never doubted Shepard is about rebelling against fate, infact I have stated that is the very reason the ending makes no sense as Shepard gives in to the Catalyst's choices and doesn't rebel.
The narrative of the ending is broken.
The fact we are still talking about it proves it lol.
The fact EC needed to be done proves it lol.
And I did answer your questions don't lie now lol.
Indoctrinated Protheans should have been in ME2 even as the VI Vigil already said that they were dead.
This story is full of inconsistencies which makes for a bad narrative but I am sure you will try defend it and ignore the dialogue and say it was hinting at it lol.
It was emitting some kind of signal as it descended. Sounded like the shriek of the damned. Only it was coming from inside your own head. = must be part organic lmao.
)
Retour en haut
