180 réponses à ce sujet

[Linkenski]

@angol fear:
Wait let me get something straight (from page 4). I'm not allowed to compare Mass Effect to tolkien to justify my argument that Mass Effect has a shitty ending, but you're allowed to justify the ending by comparing it to a random-ass obscure movie , Snowpiercer to show how good the ending is?

I think you're being slightly hypocritical.

[Batarian Master Race]

Wrong...The ending dealt with the main themes of the entire trilogy. From the creation of the antagonist to the antagonists methods, as well as choosing the solution to end the cycle. You were not paying attention.

 

It's amusing how many times I've seen this come up. Maybe YOU weren't the one paying attention, because the main themes of the entire trilogy have always been strength through diversity and understanding through conversation and discussion. The Starjar ending incoroporated neither of those, with Synthesis entirely annihilating the first.

 

Instead of dismissing me as someone who simply didn't pay attention, why don't you pull the stick out from your ass and take another look at the series?

[Iakus]

 

The problem with your conclusions is that the players shouldn't have to understand or even know about postmodernism to have the ending make sense. Remember that bit about narrative coherence in the video you mocked? Well, that is the problem most people had with the ending. "Why am I shooting this tube?" is a great example of "wtf is going on?" When people start wondering what's going on then the game isn't working, neither on a thematic level nor on the much simpler storytelling level. The story has to make sense before you start talking about themes. You can feel free to mock other people's reactions and talk about broad themes of postmodernism and bring up obscure movies, but that doesn't make the questions of simple storytelling and how plot points flow into plot points any less valid.

 

Well, you see, the tube is a phallic symbol as Shepard symbolically castrates the Reapers...

 

 

Yeah, I got nuthin. 

[Dantriges]

WRONG
 
The AI becomes known, the Crucible is explained, and its altered because it saw that it cannot continue the cycle because organics know how to exploit it.
 
It is ignorant....it doesn't understand what organic life is about and underestimates their willingness to break the cycle. That's why his solution is flawed. he ignored the concerns of who he is affecting.

How about No? At least not for me. We don´t who´s talking there, why it let you upstairs and how the crucible interacted with it. According to the Leviathan and himself, it is a construct to oversee organic-synthetic relations. And the collective intelligence of the Reapers who give him function and he gves them purpose. Ah yes what is it? First one, second one or both and you can´t talk simple? Is it the same weird stuff as:
"You killed the last cycle."
"I helped them ascend."
"I met the Collectors. So slavery is ascension, ok." Ah sorry, I am not allowed that kind of depth.

Probably it´s intended to be both or could be that inserting new dialogue and keeping the original one wasn´t such a good idea after all.
So it´s ignorant of the concerns of the people he is affecting? Hm k, why do we find a solution with the collective intelligence of the Reapers when they don´t get the basics? There´s no equivalent to the maslow´s hierarchy of needs somewhere in this vast storehouse of collected knowledge? Ah it just ignored them. What changed its opinion? One human more bleeding out in the processing area?

 

Ah no, it´s the crucible. And how does it do that if it´s just little more than a power source and the Citadel+relays only allow it to release tremendous amounts of energy throughout the galaxy? Ah it altered the variables. Hm well, it seems that that the "little more" part of it is more important after all.

 

So where are we now? We finally met the collective antagonist or the antagonist who isn´t the antagonist, because he is the gatekeeper to the end who tells us that we have to wave the lollipop that did something to enable this and made it realize that its/their solution is flawed. Oh and we die. In the meantime it´s busy blasting ships. And if we don´t do it, it continues with the original solution because uh well nothing better to do? Just because the solution is flawed doesn´t mean it´s not fun? Reset to default harvesting state? Just stopping, going away and working on a better solution, if Shepard refuses, is no option, because? 

 

IMO they left out the important parts. but well, some people found it sufficient.

[txgoldrush]

It's amusing how many times I've seen this come up. Maybe YOU weren't the one paying attention, because the main themes of the entire trilogy have always been strength through diversity and understanding through conversation and discussion. The Starjar ending incoroporated neither of those, with Synthesis entirely annihilating the first.

 

Instead of dismissing me as someone who simply didn't pay attention, why don't you pull the stick out from your ass and take another look at the series?

WRONG

 

Thats a secondary theme, and only a driving force in Mass Effect 3. But its not the most important theme in ME3. It does not even drive the CONFLICT in Mass Effect.

 

YOU weren't paying attention. The ending addressed OTHER themes the series had. Themes such as victory through sacrifice, having to make tough decisions, the control of others destinies, etc.

 

Face it, Bioware did not select strength through diversity as the main theme. You are complaining that it breaks that theme you thought it would be about. You can't do that.

[txgoldrush]

How about No? At least not for me. We don´t who´s talking there, why it let you upstairs and how the crucible interacted with it. According to the Leviathan and himself, it is a construct to oversee organic-synthetic relations. And the collective intelligence of the Reapers who give him function and he gves them purpose. Ah yes what is it? First one, second one or both and you can´t talk simple? Is it the same weird stuff as:
"You killed the last cycle."
"I helped them ascend."
"I met the Collectors. So slavery is ascension, ok." Ah sorry, I am not allowed that kind of depth.

Probably it´s intended to be both or could be that inserting new dialogue and keeping the original one wasn´t such a good idea after all.
So it´s ignorant of the concerns of the people he is affecting? Hm k, why do we find a solution with the collective intelligence of the Reapers when they don´t get the basics? There´s no equivalent to the maslow´s hierarchy of needs somewhere in this vast storehouse of collected knowledge? Ah it just ignored them. What changed its opinion? One human more bleeding out in the processing area?

 

Ah no, it´s the crucible. And how does it do that if it´s just little more than a power source and the Citadel+relays only allow it to release tremendous amounts of energy throughout the galaxy? Ah it altered the variables. Hm well, it seems that that the "little more" part of it is more important after all.

 

So where are we now? We finally met the collective antagonist or the antagonist who isn´t the antagonist, because he is the gatekeeper to the end who tells us that we have to wave the lollipop that did something to enable this and made it realize that its/their solution is flawed. Oh and we die. In the meantime it´s busy blasting ships. And if we don´t do it, it continues with the original solution because uh well nothing better to do? Just because the solution is flawed doesn´t mean it´s not fun? Reset to default harvesting state? Just stopping, going away and working on a better solution, if Shepard refuses, is no option, because? 

 

IMO they left out the important parts. but well, some people found it sufficient.

You really do not get it do you?

 

He helps you because bringing the Crucible to the Citadel makes it realize its cycle will not work anymore, that organics are so resourceful, they can use the Reaper's tech against them. That's what he means by "altering the variables". That's why he helps you along with the fact that the Catalyst cannot bring a new solution about.

 

So if you refuse, and the cycle continues, the next cycle will end it before the Reapers even invade, proving that the Catalyst's solution doesn't work anymore.

 

And really, you are criticizing Bioware because they did not do what they wanted them to do, not on what Bioware tried to do. You can't do that. That's poor critique.

[Dantriges]

You really do not get it do you?

I have a different opinion, thanks.
   

He helps you because bringing the Crucible to the Citadel makes it realize its cycle will not work anymore, that organics are so resourceful, they can use the Reaper's tech against them. That's what he means by "altering the variables". That's why he helps you along with the fact that the Catalyst cannot bring a new solution about.

Well it could have realized that after the first Thanix cannon blew up a Reaper. So the Reaper organ you built in, was the crucial part that persuaded the Catalyst? The one you could miss, that you grabbed it, because it only showed up in war assets ? I would expect the story to dwell on that fact instead of throwing it into the number pool, which had a different function within the game.
Oh and the entry in war assets sounds like they reaper brain isn´t part of the Crucible but picked apart by drones and I doubt that they do it in the Crucible.

And well it should at least be able to halt execution of the current flawed solution. Just because the Shepard refuses to give a new one, doesn´t necessarily result in continued execution of a solution which is recognized as false. Or is it under some compulsion that he has to reap the galaxy? This could be relevant to Shepard´s interests which was my point all along. Not enough info.
 

So if you refuse, and the cycle continues, the next cycle will end it before the Reapers even invade, proving that the Catalyst's solution doesn't work anymore.

That´s nice for current Shepard. I didn´t knew he could see in the future. And as Fob pointed out in another thread it was done, involving questioning the fans.
  

And really, you are criticizing Bioware because they did not do what they wanted them to do, not on what Bioware tried to do. You can't do that. That's poor critique.

Who is "they?" I critisize the product I´ve got.

[txgoldrush]

I have a different opinion, thanks.
   

Well it could have realized that after the first Thanix cannon blew up a Reaper. So the Reaper organ you built in, was the crucial part that persuaded the Catalyst? The one you could miss, that you grabbed it, because it only showed up in war assets ? I would expect the story to dwell on that fact instead of throwing it into the number pool, which had a different function within the game.
Oh and the entry in war assets sounds like they reaper brain isn´t part of the Crucible but picked apart by drones and I doubt that they do it in the Crucible.

And well it should at least be able to halt execution of the current flawed solution. Just because the Shepard refuses to give a new one, doesn´t necessarily result in continued execution of a solution which is recognized as false. Or is it under some compulsion that he has to reap the galaxy? This could be relevant to Shepard´s interests which was my point all along. Not enough info.
 

That´s nice for current Shepard. I didn´t knew he could see in the future. And as Fob pointed out in another thread it was done, involving questioning the fans.
  

Who is "they?" I critisize the product I´ve got.

No, you don't get it, it shows.

 

You simply are not understanding a thing I am telling you or what the ending is telling you. You are hitting everywhere but the point.

 

The point is that with the Crucible docked with the Citadel, finally revealing to the Catalyst what the device it has seen in the past actually does, the Catalyst comes to the conclusion that the cycle will not work anymore, because even if he stops Shepard, organics are resourceful enough to end the Reapers the next cycle. It fits right in with the plot point of past cycles helping future ones.

 

There is no hack, no programming change, just a realization that the cycle cannot continue, hence that's why it helps Shepard.

 

The refuse ending just proves my point. So what, Shepard cannot see in the future, that doesn't make the plot point not true. Take Vampire the Masquerade Bloodlines for example. You can end the game without opening the sarcophagus and never see the bomb inside, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't have a bomb inside if it isn't opened. In some endings the sarcophagus is opened and either you and/or LaCroix are blown up and some endings, the sarcophagus is dumped into the ocean or locked in a vault, with the thinking that the power of what they think is inside is too much for anyone to harness. But in all endings, there is a bomb in the box even if you never know it, with the vampire inside taken.

 

The Catalyst's solution doesn't work anymore in every and all endings

 

And you ARE criticizing the product because it did not do what you want it to do, not on its own merits.

[Dantriges]

No, you don't get it, it shows.

You simply are not understanding a thing I am telling you or what the ending is telling you. You are hitting everywhere but the point.

Your assumption is incorrect.
 

The point is that with the Crucible docked with the Citadel, finally revealing to the Catalyst what the device it has seen in the past actually does, the Catalyst comes to the conclusion that the cycle will not work anymore, because even if he stops Shepard, organics are resourceful enough to end the Reapers the next cycle. It fits right in with the plot point of past cycles helping future ones.

There is no hack, no programming change, just a realization that the cycle cannot continue, hence that's why it helps Shepard.

 
My point was not enough info. That´s in the post you were responding to. The other point was: Why keep harvesting when the catalyst itself realizes that the solution doesn´t work anymore.

And the next cycle starts from point zero anyways. Many cycles died to bring us the plans of the Crucible and we spent that shot.
 

The Catalyst's solution doesn't work anymore in every and all endings

 Yes, it is stated that the solution doesn´t work anymore  but it continues anyways. Why does it do that?
 

And you ARE criticizing the product because it did not do what you want it to do, not on its own merits.

 

Actually I am more annoyed with the rampant autodialogue, shift in the portrayal of Shepard, the lore violations, the portrayal of Cerberus, Priority Earth and uh yeah the ending, too.

Well, even if, what´s wrong with that? The question of "how does this benefit me" is a valid question when buying a product and evaluating its usefulness for oneself. Of course entertainment is not a vacuum cleaner, so the question is "did this story give me something?" But I can still say, well, this is not for me and that´s why. Actually I got some benefit. I knew what was coming, so I was prepared. I wasn´t really angered, perhaps when I saw it the first time and control turned out to be not what I thought it would be. But then I was amused. The beam run was hilarious, too.   

[Tim van Beek]

The point is that with the Crucible docked with the Citadel, finally revealing to the Catalyst what the device it has seen in the past actually does, the Catalyst comes to the conclusion that the cycle will not work anymore, because even if he stops Shepard, organics are resourceful enough to end the Reapers the next cycle. It fits right in with the plot point of past cycles helping future ones.

 

There is no hack, no programming change, just a realization that the cycle cannot continue, hence that's why it helps Shepard.

Why can't the Catalyst create a new solution all by itself? Why does it need Shepard? Why doesn' the Catalyst foil all plans for the next cycle? It could re-design or abandon and destroy the citadel, it could scan more thoroughly for tech like Liara's capsule (or whole planets like Ilos, for that matter), it could start the next cycle earlier, before any of the new civilizations ever comes close to be able to construct the crucible or anything like it, it could monitor the evolving civilizations much more closely, it could try to figure out why it was unable to prevent the crucible from being deployed in the current cycle:

 

There were a lot of tactical options available: Find out about the crucible via indoctrinated agents and attack it, secure the citadel at the first opportunity, deactive the mass relay needed to access the citadel, deploy ground forces on the citadel to prevent anyone from opening it.

 

Organics have become too resourceful? Only because they were allowed to, by the Reapers. But that ends now 

(If team Catalyst gets bored with continuing the cycles, it could switch to "control" for a couple of million of years, just for a change. Just with the original AI at the helm instead of Shepard 2.0).

[fraggle]

Anyway, I think that people refuse to accept Catalyst's logic not just because it is very flawed, but also because they are forced to play along with that logic. You have to choose your galaxy's destiny, so to speak, based on Catalyst's logic and it doesn't matter how much proof against it the player has, it doesn't matter if you've never seen a convincing case of the organic-synthetic conflict, you just have to accept the notion that synthetics are a problem no matter how much you disagree with it and end your game based on that.

 

Ok, I can get that, but then if the player is forced to go along with this logic, why not hate on the Crucible? This is after all what makes the changes possible, the Catalyst is only the trigger of why the Crucible was ever invented in the first place. And Shepard technically doesn't need to go along with the Catalyst's logic then, but they need to go along with what the Crucible gives you in terms of choice.

 

It would seem we need a little metadiscussion: 

 

"I like the ending/liked it when I played it": Subjective, of course everyone is entitled to like what they want. Some people will judge you based on what you like, like it or not  . I usually don't. But if you are a professor of English literature, be prepared to have to explain yourself if you are cought in the act reading e.g. Dan Brown. I think that the ME:3 ending is stupid, but I don't think that liking it proves that you are stupid or anything   (and yes, I know that there are people, especially educated people, who disagree with me on this. Point them out and we'll give them hell  ).

 

Heh, I don't really understand what this English literature professor example has to do with what I said, sorry.

And while I have never read Dan Brown (but assume it's terrible since you mock it ), we all have our guilty pleasures. Hell, I could never understand why someone would like Twilight, but plenty people do. So they just have fun with it.

[Vanilka]

Ok, I can get that, but then if the player is forced to go along with this logic, why not hate on the Crucible? This is after all what makes the changes possible, the Catalyst is only the trigger of why the Crucible was ever invented in the first place. And Shepard technically doesn't need to go along with the Catalyst's logic then, but they need to go along with what the Crucible gives you in terms of choice.

 
Actually, we don't know that. The Catalyst is very vague about what the thing actually does except for the fact it is mostly nothing but a power source, but it changed things, added new possibilities. (That already contradicts itself.) Everything else are our assumptions. However, I don't think the Crucible is generally exactly loved, either. Many people consider it to be very contrived at best and it is quite frowned upon as one of the big flaws of the story. (Also, who in their right mind would design a device that requires you to disintegrate or shoot a tube to activate it instead of some sort of simple interface that would hopefully be easy to understand? What if the Catalyst wasn't there and the cutscenes didn't show us what to do? Would we know what to do? Why make three options? Why not just one? And it's really hard to believe they would be able to do any of that without knowing what they were doing. It's just yet another thing that looks like nothing but a contrivance because they really wanted to kill Shepard off in most endings... which would be fine if it didn't try to take my brain along.)
 
It all comes down to what I said at the end of that post and the main point I was trying to make:
 

We might look at it from the outside and think, "Hm, somebody wrote this character and I don't think it's a very well written character and I think somebody did a really lame job finishing the game." Now whether you think so or not, that's of course very individual, but I think that's the deal with some people unable to accept the Catalyst's reasoning.

 

That can be applied to the Crucible, as well. It's not really that we didn't get what we wanted. (Although, sure, that may be a part of it for some.) It's that we feel it doesn't make sense. And if you think the writing is terrible, then it's really hard to enjoy it even as a part of your roleplay.

 

Also, I guess people are much more upset with the Catalyst because the synthetics being a problem is its claim. I can't argue with the Crucible. The Crucible is an inanimate object. It's not going to force its opinions on me because it has none. The worst I can say about the Crucible is that it is, in my opinion, a really lame plot device that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If I fired the Crucible on Destroy and synthetics ended up being collateral damage, sure, I would be like, "Holy hell, that sucks," but without the Catalyst's explanation, I would assume it were just that - collateral damage. It wouldn't be "because synthetics are going to eat you or something" any more. The Catalyst is a character you interact with that makes a lot of baseless assumptions that you cannot argue with and you just have to accept them as truthful. You can think it's insane or broken, but you still have to act on that advice. That's something the Crucible cannot do.

 

Again, I don't know whether that's the deal for most players. It's what I think the deal might be. It is for me.

[Batarian Master Race]

Thats a secondary theme, and only a driving force in Mass Effect 3. But its not the most important theme in ME3. It does not even drive the CONFLICT in Mass Effect.

 

ME1: Without the diversity within your crew, you wouldn't have Tali, whose geth expertise allowed you to find proof of Saren's treachery. You wouldn't have Liara, whose mind-melding abilities pointed the way to the Conduit. 

 

ME2: Without a diverse crew, you would have had no way in hell of making it through the Suicide Mission. Many crewmates remark on how odd it is that Cerberus is hiring aliens, the justification being that they're needed for a mission the likes of which none have ever seen before. Note how only specific people can succeed at specific tasks throughout the Suicide Mission. In addition, alien love interests are far more common in ME2, each one with their own cultural impediments to romance. Each of these are overcome, however, and the bond between Shep and the LI is stronger for it.

 

ME3: The galaxy couldn't survive without individual races unifying. Most of the game is spent achieving this goal, including (possibly) recruiting an entire synthetic race. Javik states that the diversity of the Council and non-council races is the only thing keeping the galaxy from falling to the Reapers.

 

Strength through Diversity is a theme, and one that runs counter to Organics vs Synthetics. They are opposing mindsets that Shepard can take, closely mirroring renegade/paragon.

 

Organic/Synthetic is a much weaker theme than you enforce. While Shepard fights the Geth in ME1, there's also a great deal of non-geth enemies, which relegates the Geth to merely one of many opposing forces. Singling them out as the primary enemy is ridiculous. Saren and Sovreign are both synthetic/organic hybrids. In ME2, the main enemies are organic/synthetic hybrids, with both organics and synthetics on your side AND on the enemy's side. In ME3, the main enemies are... organic/synthetic hybrids, with both organics and synthetics on your side AND on the enemy's side.

 

There's much more of a case to be made for the main theme being fighting those who would combine organics and synthetics... and, by doing so, eliminate the strength that can be found through diversity.

 

Stop setting yourself up as the arbiter of all that is right and just, take off the oxygen mask hooked up to your own flatulence, and admit that you might, just maybe, be wrong.

[Dantriges]

Organics have become too resourceful? Only because they were allowed to, by the Reapers. But that ends now 

(If team Catalyst gets bored with continuing the cycles, it could switch to "control" for a couple of million of years, just for a change. Just with the original AI at the helm instead of Shepard 2.0).

 

I like the idea that the Reapers set themselves up as gods decreeing that no organic shall ever attempt the blasphemous act of creating life in the image of the synthetic gods aka synthetics or they shall be burned by the firey wrath of heaven. And their next of kin, their village etc because Harbinger doesn´t bother with precision strikes. The worthy (aka suitable for processing) shall be rewarded by going into the hallowed light to join the gods in the heavens.

[Monica21]

I like the idea that the Reapers set themselves up as gods decreeing that no organic shall ever attempt the blasphemous act of creating life in the image of the synthetic gods aka synthetics or they shall be burned by the firey wrath of heaven. And their next of kin, their village etc because Harbinger doesn´t bother with precision strikes. The worthy (aka suitable for processing) shall be rewarded by going into the hallowed light to join the gods in the heavens.

 

That's actually way more in line with Sovereign's "we are beyond comprehension" speech.

[Vanilka]

I like the idea that the Reapers set themselves up as gods decreeing that no organic shall ever attempt the blasphemous act of creating life in the image of the synthetic gods aka synthetics or they shall be burned by the firey wrath of heaven. And their next of kin, their village etc because Harbinger doesn´t bother with precision strikes. The worthy (aka suitable for processing) shall be rewarded by going into the hallowed light to join the gods in the heavens.

 

That perhaps sounds better than my "We freaking need to eat something, man," or "Because we're synthetic and can't really make or have babies... well... you get the drift..." But... hey... not everything has to be complicated, right? It could, after all, be worse. They could, like, kill us to prevent us from creating other synthetics that might maybe kill us... ehh... you know, never mind.

 

Please, don't be offended by my terribad attempts at humour.

[txgoldrush]

Your assumption is incorrect.
 

 
My point was not enough info. That´s in the post you were responding to. The other point was: Why keep harvesting when the catalyst itself realizes that the solution doesn´t work anymore.

And the next cycle starts from point zero anyways. Many cycles died to bring us the plans of the Crucible and we spent that shot.
 

 
Yes, it is stated that the solution doesn´t work anymore  but it continues anyways. Why does it do that?

 

Actually I am more annoyed with the rampant autodialogue, shift in the portrayal of Shepard, the lore violations, the portrayal of Cerberus, Priority Earth and uh yeah the ending, too.

Well, even if, what´s wrong with that? The question of "how does this benefit me" is a valid question when buying a product and evaluating its usefulness for oneself. Of course entertainment is not a vacuum cleaner, so the question is "did this story give me something?" But I can still say, well, this is not for me and that´s why. Actually I got some benefit. I knew what was coming, so I was prepared. I wasn´t really angered, perhaps when I saw it the first time and control turned out to be not what I thought it would be. But then I was amused. The beam run was hilarious, too.   

No my assumption is very correct.

 

The Catalyst will continue the harvest because a new solution simply put, wasn't enacted. He has no other option and he himself cannot enact his own new solution with the Crucible.

 

Yes, the next cycle starts at point zero, but through Liara's capsule, they use the Crucible before the Reapers even invade. The alternate stargazer scene suggests they avoided the war entirely.

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=et3TWf_dyfw

 

No, the fact is, you just didn't like it. Lore violations? What lore violations? Most of the series you have characters give the lore, and it can be contradicted. Thats part of the story. The portrayal of Cerberus was foreshadowed in Mass Effect 2. Its not the writers fault you didn't see it coming. 

 

The problem is you. You simply put, did not like the direction they went with it. Thats it. It doesn't mean its flawed or objectively bad. You just didn't like or get it.

[txgoldrush]

That perhaps sounds better than my "We freaking need to eat something, man," or "Because we're synthetic and can't really make or have babies... well... you get the drift..." But... hey... not everything has to be complicated, right? It could, after all, be worse. They could, like, kill us to prevent us from creating other synthetics that might maybe kill us... ehh... you know, never mind.

 

Please, don't be offended by my terribad attempts at humour.

Which is misrepresenting the motives of the Catalyst. We start forest fires to prevent worse forest fires you know.

 

 

Why can't the Catalyst create a new solution all by itself? Why does it need Shepard? Why doesn' the Catalyst foil all plans for the next cycle? It could re-design or abandon and destroy the citadel, it could scan more thoroughly for tech like Liara's capsule (or whole planets like Ilos, for that matter), it could start the next cycle earlier, before any of the new civilizations ever comes close to be able to construct the crucible or anything like it, it could monitor the evolving civilizations much more closely, it could try to figure out why it was unable to prevent the crucible from being deployed in the current cycle:

 

There were a lot of tactical options available: Find out about the crucible via indoctrinated agents and attack it, secure the citadel at the first opportunity, deactive the mass relay needed to access the citadel, deploy ground forces on the citadel to prevent anyone from opening it.

 

Organics have become too resourceful? Only because they were allowed to, by the Reapers. But that ends now 

(If team Catalyst gets bored with continuing the cycles, it could switch to "control" for a couple of million of years, just for a change. Just with the original AI at the helm instead of Shepard 2.0).

Why can't the Catalyst create a new solution all by itself? 

 

It needs Shepard to enact synthesis due to him being both organic and synthetic at this point. It won't destroy itself and it already controls the Reapers. So, by itself it cannot use the Crucible.

 

Why doesn't' the Catalyst foil all plans for the next cycle?

 

That would have to be making massive changes to the cycle. Never mind the fact that he wants organic civilizations to use the relays and evolve on the Catalyst's terms. 

 

Organics are too resourceful because the Reapers are not infallible. EDI even suggests the Reapers aren't infallible 

[txgoldrush]

ME1: Without the diversity within your crew, you wouldn't have Tali, whose geth expertise allowed you to find proof of Saren's treachery. You wouldn't have Liara, whose mind-melding abilities pointed the way to the Conduit. 

 

ME2: Without a diverse crew, you would have had no way in hell of making it through the Suicide Mission. Many crewmates remark on how odd it is that Cerberus is hiring aliens, the justification being that they're needed for a mission the likes of which none have ever seen before. Note how only specific people can succeed at specific tasks throughout the Suicide Mission. In addition, alien love interests are far more common in ME2, each one with their own cultural impediments to romance. Each of these are overcome, however, and the bond between Shep and the LI is stronger for it.

 

ME3: The galaxy couldn't survive without individual races unifying. Most of the game is spent achieving this goal, including (possibly) recruiting an entire synthetic race. Javik states that the diversity of the Council and non-council races is the only thing keeping the galaxy from falling to the Reapers.

 

Strength through Diversity is a theme, and one that runs counter to Organics vs Synthetics. They are opposing mindsets that Shepard can take, closely mirroring renegade/paragon.

 

Organic/Synthetic is a much weaker theme than you enforce. While Shepard fights the Geth in ME1, there's also a great deal of non-geth enemies, which relegates the Geth to merely one of many opposing forces. Singling them out as the primary enemy is ridiculous. Saren and Sovreign are both synthetic/organic hybrids. In ME2, the main enemies are organic/synthetic hybrids, with both organics and synthetics on your side AND on the enemy's side. In ME3, the main enemies are... organic/synthetic hybrids, with both organics and synthetics on your side AND on the enemy's side.

 

There's much more of a case to be made for the main theme being fighting those who would combine organics and synthetics... and, by doing so, eliminate the strength that can be found through diversity.

 

Stop setting yourself up as the arbiter of all that is right and just, take off the oxygen mask hooked up to your own flatulence, and admit that you might, just maybe, be wrong.

Wrong. Lets destroy your argument shall we.

 

In ME1, I can endorse Terra Firma...a pro human, anti alien political party. I can sacrifice the council and have an all human council come in (a massive plot hole however that was retconned out in ME3). I can be as pro human and even abusive to my alien squadmates. Really, diversity is not much of a theme in ME1, but humanity trying to find its place in the galaxy.

 

ME2 does not carry the unity theme at all. In fact, it does a very poor job at it. The theme of the game is loyalty and leadership. Diversity of the crew is only mentioned in spots, its not a theme it explored.

 

ME3 does have diversity and working together as a major theme, but its NOT the ONLY major theme the game has. The biggest theme the game has is victory through sacrifice. The consequences to others that your choices have is another, and probably the biggest theme in the series.

 

Never even enforced the organic vs synthetic theme...its the context of the conflict, NOT the conflict itself.

 

It is YOU that needs to admit you are wrong. Why can't you just understand that just because Bioware didn't base their ending around the theme of diversity doesn't mean they poorly wrote it, but that you are simply put, wrong?

[Batarian Master Race]

Wrong. Lets destroy your argument shall we.

 

In ME1, I can endorse Terra Firma...a pro human, anti alien political party. I can sacrifice the council and have an all human council come in (a massive plot hole however that was retconned out in ME3). I can be as pro human and even abusive to my alien squadmates. Really, diversity is not much of a theme in ME1, but humanity trying to find its place in the galaxy.

 

ME2 does not carry the unity theme at all. In fact, it does a very poor job at it. The theme of the game is loyalty and leadership. Diversity of the crew is only mentioned in spots, its not a theme it explored.

 

ME3 does have diversity and working together as a major theme, but its NOT the ONLY major theme the game has. The biggest theme the game has is victory through sacrifice. The consequences to others that your choices have is another, and probably the biggest theme in the series.

 

Never even enforced the organic vs synthetic theme...its the context of the conflict, NOT the conflict itself.

 

It is YOU that needs to admit you are wrong. Why can't you just understand that just because Bioware didn't base their ending around the theme of diversity doesn't mean they poorly wrote it, but that you are simply put, wrong?

 

ME1: Despite not being kind to aliens, your Shepard still relies on them and their individuality, and would be unable to complete the game otherwise. Thus, their diversity is crucial to the plot. In addition, the world itself emphasizes the strength that can be found when races work together, showing the weakness of those that do not (Krogan, Quarians, and Batarians).

 

ME2: I've given numerous examples of how it is, in fact, a theme. And I'll add another: you're facing a race with no individuality and no diversity, a race which is unambiguously a bad thing to be. Instead of saying it's wrong, how about you show me why it's wrong? Oh, wait, that would require proof.

 

ME3: Again, please show how victory through sacrifice is a larger theme than strength through diversity, given that the majority of the story missions focus on using the individual strengths of the races.

 

I've supported my arguments numerous times. You've tapped caps lock and simply said I was wrong without refuting any of my points. 2/10, but you got me to respond.

[Dantriges]

Do you mean the husks that Cerberus worked on in ME 1? I don´t remember where Cerberus worked on husk conversion in ME 2.

 

 

The Catalyst will continue the harvest because a new solution simply put, wasn't enacted. He has no other option and he himself cannot enact his own new solution with the Crucible.

 

Yes, the next cycle starts at point zero, but through Liara's capsule, they use the Crucible before the Reapers even invade. The alternate stargazer scene suggests they avoided the war entirely.

 

It´s an artificial superintelligence and it can´t come up with another idea or realize that switching back to searching solution mode is a good idea? Or shrug and say "Ah well, if you think so. We leave. Give us a call when the robots come, we blow them up with our billion year tech advantage and then we talk about this awesome synthesis deal again." Or reap that cycle, try your own synthesis attempt next cycle without forcing people.

 

BTW Shepard is not the only cybernetic dude in the galaxy. Does the catalyst mention that this is the reason why only Shepard can do that?

[txgoldrush]

Do you mean the husks that Cerberus worked on in ME 1? I don´t remember where Cerberus worked on husk conversion in ME 2.

 

 

It´s an artificial superintelligence and it can´t come up with another idea or realize that switching back to searching solution mode is a good idea? Or shrug and say "Ah well, if you think so. We leave. Give us a call when the robots come, we blow them up with our billion year tech advantage and then we talk about this awesome synthesis deal again." Or reap that cycle, try your own synthesis attempt next cycle without forcing people.

 

BTW Shepard is not the only cybernetic dude in the galaxy. Does the catalyst mention that this is the reason why only Shepard can do that?

Its already searching for a new solution...we learn that in Leviathan. thats why it set up the mass relays. The cycle isn't its ideal solution, synthesis is.

 

Another aspect that proves my point is that The Catalyst is more friendly to you at 2800 EMS, when synthesis is available, but more hostile to you if synthesis cannot be achieved, with lower EMS. For instance, it will say "you bring it on yourselves" and "you have choice, more than you deserve" rather than "you have choice, more than you know".

 

So The Catalyst has two reasons to help you at high EMS, but begrudgingly has to help you because its cycle still won't work anymore with low EMS but its ideal solution cannot be achieved.

 

But Shepard is available at that moment.

[fraggle]

 Actually, we don't know that. The Catalyst is very vague about what the thing actually does except for the fact it is mostly nothing but a power source, but it changed things, added new possibilities. (That already contradicts itself.) Everything else are our assumptions. However, I don't think the Crucible is generally exactly loved, either. Many people consider it to be very contrived at best and it is quite frowned upon as one of the big flaws of the story. (Also, who in their right mind would design a device that requires you to disintegrate or shoot a tube to activate it instead of some sort of simple interface that would hopefully be easy to understand? What if the Catalyst wasn't there and the cutscenes didn't show us what to do? Would we know what to do? Why make three options? Why not just one? And it's really hard to believe they would be able to do any of that without knowing what they were doing. It's just yet another thing that looks like nothing but a contrivance because they really wanted to kill Shepard off in most endings... which would be fine if it didn't try to take my brain along.)

 

Why does it contradict? If Synthesis really is only possible because it requires that huge amount of energy and the Citadel arms to disperse it, then it does add that new possibility. (And yes, these are our assumptions, but interpreting these things is the point. We'll never get any confirmation.)

And even if Synthesis is not available, the others must've been attached to the Crucible. This fits with what Vendetta says about his people thinking it could be used to both destroy and control the Reapers. Let's say the solutions are attached to the Citadel, where they were at the end. How would they even think about this, not knowing what awaits them at the Citadel? They do know that it's the Catalyst, but no-one has ever made it there, so something must've made them think beforehand that it's the Crucible that can control or destroy. *If* the solutions were really attached to the Citadel already I wouldn't love this exactly, but since we will never know for sure, I go with what makes more sense to me.

Yeah, I know the Crucible isn't loved, too, and I also don't like how it was introduced. But I don't actually have a problem with it being built. How hard is it really to follow plans once you got them and build this thing? If anything, I would've wished they hinted at these plans during ME2 already, Liara might have been useful then as the Shadow Broker for once

We don't know what would happen if the Catalyst wasn't there, though I see no reason why it wouldn't be there. And why even ask this question? This is hypothetical, it is the same as, say, you get something in life that really gives you an advantage, do you go back and think about if you didn't have it what would change? Maybe yes, but it is what it is. It doesn't matter if you think about other possible outcomes, you have it and there's nothing you can change about it, same as with the Catalyst. Bioware chose for it to be there, so why think about "What if"?

I think they were going for 3 options because the 3 options were themes throughout the games. Yes, I know some don't see it that way, but people can deny it all they want, the concepts for Synthesis and Control were present throughout the games. We have TIM as representative for Control, there's no arguing that, and the combination of synthetics and organics has been done in multiple ways. If the Catalyst tells you Synthesis didn't work yet we can see it's right because all combination efforts have gone horribly wrong so far.

And so what if they wanted to kill off Shepard? Maybe they did because they thought it's a fitting end for the Trilogy? Because it's supposed to be over, Shepard's story has been told. And I don't see how letting Shepard live isn't the same contrivance. If they wanted they could've found a way to tell the story with letting him/her live, yes. They could let Shepard live because of reasons. They can also kill him/her for reasons. They had to decide which they wanted to do and that's really all there is to it imo.

 

Also, I guess people are much more upset with the Catalyst because the synthetics being a problem is its claim. I can't argue with the Crucible. The Crucible is an inanimate object. It's not going to force its opinions on me because it has none. The worst I can say about the Crucible is that it is, in my opinion, a really lame plot device that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If I fired the Crucible on Destroy and synthetics ended up being collateral damage, sure, I would be like, "Holy hell, that sucks," but without the Catalyst's explanation, I would assume it were just that - collateral damage. It wouldn't be "because synthetics are going to eat you or something" any more. The Catalyst is a character you interact with that makes a lot of baseless assumptions that you cannot argue with and you just have to accept them as truthful. You can think it's insane or broken, but you still have to act on that advice. That's something the Crucible cannot do.

 

Yeah, I get that many people have a problem with the Catalyst's claim, yet I still don't see why you need to be able to argue with it, when it follows an equation. It thinks like a machine, it has been programmed.

 

Actually I'd say that the synthetics are still collateral damage, especially with the Catalyst's explanation. "The Crucible will not discriminate." No matter what the Catalyst tells you, this is still the Crucible's doing.

 

And again, why do you have to accept these assumptions as truthful? Your Shepard can still think it's a load of bull. Nowhere does Shepard say "Ooh, you're right!" to the Catalyst, quite the contrary. When the Catalyst says that the Reapers were the only solution, Shepard says "You said that before. But how do the Reapers solve anything?" Implying that Shepard asks "why are the Reapers attacking us right now when you claim this is your exact problem? Shouldn't we be at peace if they are your solution?"

The Catalyst then goes on explaining its equation and the organic/synthetic problem, that the Reapers preserve them before they are forever lost to this conflict, and Shepard does actually reject it, saying that they're at war with the Reapers right now. And after the Catalyst says that Reapers and organics might be in conflict, but that Reapers are not interested in war, Shepard doesn't really buy it, "I find that hard to believe.". That shows me that Shepard isn't really convinced about this problem or the solution to it. And then finally when Shepard says that the Catalyst is taking away their future and hope, it sounds to me as if this is what you and me say. We can take care of ourselves. Why do we need the Reapers?

At least it could be interpreted that way I believe.

[Vanilka]

Which is misrepresenting the motives of the Catalyst. We start forest fires to prevent worse forest fires you know.

 
Yes, comparing apples with oranges makes so much sense. Or comparing a chemical reaction with sentient beings, even better. Or comparing burning plants to killing sentient beings. Look, if that's the best the Catalyst can come up with, then it's dumber than an average computer nowadays. Actually, dumber than an average human being. A child could come up with something better. Its "solution" is the most laughable thing I've ever heard of. I don't remember any other video game ending that made me facepalm this hard.

 

Why does it contradict? If Synthesis really is only possible because it requires that huge amount of energy and the Citadel arms to disperse it, then it does add that new possibility. (And yes, these are our assumptions, but interpreting these things is the point. We'll never get any confirmation.)

It contradicts itself because it tells you it's mostly nothing but a power source and then suddenly it can make big changes happen. It was not some big statement I was trying to make, but the lines do contradict themselves. But I can accept it with your interpretation.
 

And even if Synthesis is not available, the others must've been attached to the Crucible. This fits with what Vendetta says about his people thinking it could be used to both destroy and control the Reapers. Let's say the solutions are attached to the Citadel, where they were at the end. How would they even think about this, not knowing what awaits them at the Citadel? They do know that it's the Catalyst, but no-one has ever made it there, so something must've made them think beforehand that it's the Crucible that can control or destroy. *If* the solutions were really attached to the Citadel already I wouldn't love this exactly, but since we will never know for sure, I go with what makes more sense to me.

But that's the whole problem. How? Why? Speculations for everyone! Don't want to bother figuring out your own story which is what you are technically paid for but who cares? Just sit back, put your feet on the desk, and let the players invent it for you. There sure is space for interpretation and headcanon, I like to do plenty myself, but the story should be making sense without it.

I'm totally for having the options to control and destroy the Reapers. The concepts are good. Very good. I'm not saying they aren't. But the execution makes little sense. It still doesn't explain why the device is built so that the one who activates it has to disintegrate. If you were building such a device, would you do it that way? Wouldn't you rather go for something like the interface used to enter the Geth consensus? Wouldn't you rather make something simple so even an idiot from 30 Cycles later can hopefully know what to do when they finally get to use it? If you were Shepard, would you know what to do with it provided that you weren't shown a cutscene of it like the player is? Because my first instinct would be, "Damn, that looks like electricity, I'd better not get too close to it." The Catalyst doesn't even explain how to use it. Some random cutscene with TIM pops up to instruct us on what to do with it. Shepard somehow magically knows they need to grab the rods when the player approaches it, despite never getting told what to do. I really do believe that something much less obscure would make much more sense, especially given that the plans exchanged hands many times and the success all hangs on the person activating the Crucible knowing what to do.
 

Yeah, I know the Crucible isn't loved, too, and I also don't like how it was introduced. But I don't actually have a problem with it being built. How hard is it really to follow plans once you got them and build this thing? If anything, I would've wished they hinted at these plans during ME2 already, Liara might have been useful then as the Shadow Broker for once

This is a huge problem with ME2. I love the game and have plenty of fun with it, but the fact is that it mostly consists of filler. Fun filler, but filler. ME2 should ideally be about figuring out how to stop the Reapers, studying them, or something. Something relevant to our plans to stop the Reapers. The Collector plot doesn't really do much for the franchise as a whole. 

I think the idea with the Crucible isn't exactly horrible, but it's handled poorly. I agree it would be great if they gave us some foreshadowing in ME2, at least. (Again, this is the problem with how they were making it up as they went instead of having the whole trilogy at least roughly planned. It sadly caused plenty of issues.) The Mars archives were a big deal after all. Anderson even says there was just a small data cache on Mars in ME1 but it still pushed humanity forward in amazing ways. Not sure if that's a retcon or whether they found another place on Mars - given that Shepard says something about them knowing about the archives for years and expresses surprise about only finding out about the device now... well, again, how very convenient.

I'm not against the Crucible as a concept. Although I totally wouldn't be against some different idea, as well. However, once it all becomes too convenient, it really tests my suspension of disbelief.
 

We don't know what would happen if the Catalyst wasn't there, though I see no reason why it wouldn't be there. And why even ask this question? This is hypothetical, it is the same as, say, you get something in life that really gives you an advantage, do you go back and think about if you didn't have it what would change? Maybe yes, but it is what it is. It doesn't matter if you think about other possible outcomes, you have it and there's nothing you can change about it, same as with the Catalyst. Bioware chose for it to be there, so why think about "What if"?

I am saying that because we are told how nobody basically knew about the Catalyst, yet they didn't bother to make the device intuitive. It goes back to the above part of this post. Would you know what to do? If you were an ancient race on the verge of extinction, you'd probably want to make the options very intuitive because you don't know who might eventually manage to find the plans and build the Crucible. It's very possible it may be a being that doesn't speak your language and might not have the same level of scientific knowledge, etc. Personally, I'd probably never figure out that I have to shoot/break something to activate it. My instincts would be not to break stuff since we need the thing intact to work - or so I would assume. I would never think of committing suicide to activate something, either, because I've never seen any other device that does such a thing and it's something I'd rather not do as an experiment. How do I know the ray of energy I see is something to jump into and not e.g. just something that allows the Crucible to run? We are lucky as hell the Catalyst is there. However, even with the Catalyst, we get no explanation, just a small cutscene which Shepard cannot see unless the Catalyst can somehow telepathically transmit these images into their head. The player is lucky that Shepard magically knows what to do when the player approaches their choice. Again, very convenient.
 

I think they were going for 3 options because the 3 options were themes throughout the games. Yes, I know some don't see it that way, but people can deny it all they want, the concepts for Synthesis and Control were present throughout the games. We have TIM as representative for Control, there's no arguing that, and the combination of synthetics and organics has been done in multiple ways. If the Catalyst tells you Synthesis didn't work yet we can see it's right because all combination efforts have gone horribly wrong so far.

 
Synthesis is always presented as a bad thing in the game, though: husks, collectors, Saren, etc. To make it the best ending that you can only unlock with most work? I'm sorry, but I can't be happy about this kind of writing when we're only shown that synthesis is a horrific thing. Not to even mention that how the whole thing works doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Geth don't have DNA, so how does it affect them? Actually, how does it overwrite anybody's DNA? I can't express this idea with more than, "How the hell?" I wish I could. Another thing is that the implications are very unpleasant: If somebody gave you the option to merge white people and black people DNA because that's, according to them, the only way to stop racism, you'd probably want to kick their ass, no? I know I would. To me, it is simply a rather insulting idea to work with. At least the way the game does it. (And there's a big difference between when the Reapers do it and it's seen as a horrific thing to do [Good idea.] and when the writer makes it the best ending, sending this kind of message at the end of the game. [Imho, horrible idea.])
 
It's a terrible shame because the idea of synthesis, meaning organic beings with tech parts, is not at all bad, I think. It's a cool concept that has a lot of potential. If we had a race that had a habit of implanting themselves or having a way to put their minds into synthetic bodies or something, I would be more than happy to enjoy that. But merging/rewriting DNA is not how to go about it, imho. Not in a game that was largely about various races working together. (TBH, I like Shepard's renegade answer to this: "You're asking me to change everything. Everyone. I can't make that decision. I won't." The ending choices are all unethical [Minus perhaps Refuse.], but I hate this one most. By far. Because of the message it sends and because it's all space magic.)
 

And so what if they wanted to kill off Shepard? Maybe they did because they thought it's a fitting end for the Trilogy? Because it's supposed to be over, Shepard's story has been told. And I don't see how letting Shepard live isn't the same contrivance. If they wanted they could've found a way to tell the story with letting him/her live, yes. They could let Shepard live because of reasons. They can also kill him/her for reasons. They had to decide which they wanted to do and that's really all there is to it imo.

Sorry, maybe I expressed myself badly. I don't think killing off Shepard in most endings is a bad thing (although I do think variety is a good thing and, well, we have one ending where Shepard lives anyway), but I think the way it's done makes little sense (Yaaay, sprinkling Shepard's genes all over the galaxy and magically giving geth DNA or whatever the hell that was supposed to be.) and it's, frankly, the most anti-climatic death of a protagonist I've seen ever. You know who I think had a great death? Mordin while curing the genophage. Hell, how I cried, but it was so perfect. Shepard's death is meh at best. Combined with how contrived it all is - I explained it in countless posts why the end isn't convincing to me at all - I really didn't care when I was finishing the game for the first time. I felt pretty much nothing, no matter which ending I chose and whether Shepard made it or not. Although I do admit the Destroy ending is at least somewhat more satisfying than the rest because, if anything, I feel like it solved our problem. Not the Catalyst's problem, our problem - the Reapers and their harvests.
 

Yeah, I get that many people have a problem with the Catalyst's claim, yet I still don't see why you need to be able to argue with it, when it follows an equation. It thinks like a machine, it has been programmed.

That's another assumption. I think I said it somewhere else already: Speculating that I cannot argue with it is pretty much the same as speculating that I can. Neither fixes or worsens our situation now. Either way, I have bigger issues with other things than this, to be honest.
 

Actually I'd say that the synthetics are still collateral damage, especially with the Catalyst's explanation. "The Crucible will not discriminate." No matter what the Catalyst tells you, this is still the Crucible's doing.

Maybe a bad explanation on my part. Sure, the synthetics might die either way, but the reasons for it are completely different. As I said, without the Catalyst's mumbo jumbo, it's nothing but unfortunate collateral damage. On the other hand the Catalyst forces you to solve its problem. I don't care about disillusioned ramblings of an AI that's about as intelligent as the one we hack on the Presidium in ME1, and I definitely don't want to kill/enslave/rewrite people based on its stupid ideas... which one kind of has to, unless they're ready to doom this Cycle.
 

And again, why do you have to accept these assumptions as truthful? Your Shepard can still think it's a load of bull. Nowhere does Shepard say "Ooh, you're right!" to the Catalyst, quite the contrary. When the Catalyst says that the Reapers were the only solution, Shepard says "You said that before. But how do the Reapers solve anything?" Implying that Shepard asks "why are the Reapers attacking us right now when you claim this is your exact problem? Shouldn't we be at peace if they are your solution?"
The Catalyst then goes on explaining its equation and the organic/synthetic problem, that the Reapers preserve them before they are forever lost to this conflict, and Shepard does actually reject it, saying that they're at war with the Reapers right now. And after the Catalyst says that Reapers and organics might be in conflict, but that Reapers are not interested in war, Shepard doesn't really buy it, "I find that hard to believe.". That shows me that Shepard isn't really convinced about this problem or the solution to it. And then finally when Shepard says that the Catalyst is taking away their future and hope, it sounds to me as if this is what you and me say. We can take care of ourselves. Why do we need the Reapers?
At least it could be interpreted that way I believe.

The way the conversation goes, it still ends up being, "You have to choose a solution to my problem, now go and do it," no matter what. It still leaves a horrible taste after listening to all that hogwash to me. I'd agree though that at least Shepard kind of tries to argue. They still become very passive, but at least they try to disagree sometimes, for all the good it does. Shepard's questions and some of the answers are about the only good thing I see in the whole dialogue.

So, anyway, I'm actually glad you can see it in there somewhere and roleplay it and all, but I'm deleting it out of my game. I always pick Destroy anyway and the several minutes of eye rolling, frustration, and boredom provided by the Catalyst is just so not worth it to me. You know, it's funny because I really tried to like the endings. I had heard very bad things about them so I kept my expectations low the first time around. I still was very disappointed. That's basically all I felt. And at first I thought that maybe it was too sad for my personal tastes and that's why I felt that way. And I thought about it a lot after finishing the game for the first time, because when you try to absorb what's happening while playing you don't exactly have time for that, and I realised that it's more about that I just can't unsee how much narrative I have to invent to make any of this work at all and how much I need to strain my suspension of disbelief and how much it makes disservice to the whole franchise and how so very anti-climatic it all was between TIM's confrontation and the final cutscenes where the Crucible fires, imho.

Still, I think I need to say this again because it doesn't get said nearly enough - that doesn't mean I think it's wrong to like the endings. Not in the slightest. Just because I hate them and prefer my game with the Catalyst gone and you don't doesn't make any of us better or worse.

 

BTW, as Tim van Beek said before, this is getting really off topic. Maybe we should move it to a different thread or PMs? I'm not sure how to handle this best, to be honest.