192 réponses à ce sujet

[txgoldrush]

Really...Indoctrination Theory, hacking, or putting on emphasis on trivial things....its seems to me this was the wrong fanbase to even pull this ending on, much less that Bioware did indeed badly undercook the ending the first time around. Also Leviathan DLC as well, gave a huge piece of info that factors in the understanding of the ending....why it built the mass relays. It also suggests through showing why it could look like that child.
 

The ending really isn't that complicated. Its quite simple.

 

Why does the Catalyst help you?

 

Because its cycle was beaten, if not in this cycle, than the next. Its that simple. It realizes that with the Crucible, organics are too resourceful for the cycle to continue, its solution won't work anymore. That is why he helps you. That is what he means by "altering the variables". Another reason he helps you is that it cannot activate the Crucible itself, it needs you. So that is two reasons it helps you.

 

There is NO hacking, no indoctrination, no reprogramming, and the Crucible does nothing but provide the energy that the Citadel directs and amplifies.

 

So if you refuse, the cycle is beaten anyway.

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=Vx28vv2_blI

 

Synthesis - what it wants.

 

With the info from Leviathan, you know that the cycle is not its ideal solution and that it build the mass relays, used the galaxy as an experiment to find the ideal solution....which in the end turns about to be synthesis. So, Leviathan brings a big foreshadow here. The Catalyst plainly states that its the ideal solution.

 

Another big observation by playing with a gibbed save editor is that if your EMS is too low for synthesis to be an option, the Catalyst is more hostile to you. Another big example of my point. So at low EMS, Shepard basically makes it cycle obsolete without the ideal solution appearing for the catalyst, leading to unhappy child.

 

Destroy and Control do NOT fulfill its purpose and I don't how people here actually think they do. The Catalyst will say that the chaos will come back on Destroy and that it does not look forward to being replaced on Control.

 

The conflict - LISTEN to the protagonist.

 

The ending is NOT really about "organics vs synthetics", that is the CONTEXT of the conflict, not the CONFLICT. It seems hundreds of people really haven't figured this out. The conflict that Shepard has with the Catalyst is the barbarity of its cycle. That is the conflict...means not ends. so simply out, THE CONFLICT NEVER CHANGED. There is no new conflict, it was the same in the ending as it was when the Reapers were first introduced. Listen to Shepard....which brings me to my next point.

 

The Reapers and the Catalyst don't truly understand organic life.

 

Yeah, it flipped from way back with Sovereign, when it said that Reapers are beyond comprehension. That is the twist. Its the other way around and that is the point. Never mind that Shepard even says multiple times in ME3 that the Reapers truly don't understand organic life, leading to the ending. It shows with the conversation with the Catalyst. Shepard argues that the meaning behind organic life is choice or hope. The Catalyst says earlier that organics are more resourceful than they realized. And another thing, and probably a big thing, when Synthesis is explained, Shepard can say two things...."I don't know..." and "You are asking me to change everything and everyone. I can;t make that decision and I won't"......The Catalyst replies to Shepard how Shepard can imagine his life without his synthetics which Shepard retorts..."That's beside the point" basically showing that the Catalyst does NOT comprehend the morality behind the decision or why Shepard would have trouble choosing it.

 

But victory comes at a cost.

 

A theme of the game. To end the cycle, Shepard has to sacrifice. Not on the Catalyst's behest but to fire the Crucible. Remember, the CRUCIBLE provides the choices, the solutions, not the Catalyst. And so the dilemma is brought by the thing that was built all game long, never mind Liara and Hackett did discuss and foreshadow the effects the Crucible could have.

 

So there you have it...not hard. Does it take some thought and some piecing together into what happened? Absolutely. And it was undercooked the first time around and too vague for its own good. But it does come together with what we have now and it does make sense. Pay attention to the narrative. Adding what you think happened or all these bonker theories just make the ending more confusing to you than it actually is.

 

Now the role of the Keepers to the catalyst...this is the series biggest unaddressed issue. Here is where I do think Bioware should have had the catalyst address these issues and clear the vagueness around them. The level of control that The Catalyst has with the Reapers is also too vague. It does seem however, they are not full puppets, they act on their own to fulfill its directive and the Leviathan did say the Intelligence "directed" them to build the relays. So here are two of the most vague parts of the ending.

[themikefest]

Too bad Leviathan wasn't part of the main game when released

[Tim van Beek]

 

 

Stop overthinking the ending.

I'm really trying not to think at all about the ending, man! Just think about how much more fun the game is if you don't...dammit, did it again!

[Ithurael]

Howls that the ending went over everyone's heads and that nobody 'got it'...

 

Complains that people should stop overthinking the ending...

 

Oh goldrush...

[Autoola]

Why does the Catalyst help you?

 

Because its cycle was beaten, if not in this cycle, than the next. Its that simple. It realizes that with the Crucible, organics are too resourceful for the cycle to continue, its solution won't work anymore. That is why he helps you. That is what he means by "altering the variables". Another reason he helps you is that it cannot activate the Crucible itself, it needs you. So that is two reasons it helps you.

The crucible is nothing from this cycle. It was designed by some we don´t know and there is not enough time to explain. So if the crucible makes the organic too resourceful for the cycle to continue, why does the catalyst destroy the plans? Shouldn´t it try every possible solution for the conflict?

 

 

The conflict - LISTEN to the protagonist.

 

The ending is NOT really about "organics vs synthetics", that is the CONTEXT of the conflict, not the CONFLICT. It seems hundreds of people really haven't figured this out. The conflict that Shepard has with the Catalyst is the barbarity of its cycle. That is the conflict...means not ends. so simply out, THE CONFLICT NEVER CHANGED. There is no new conflict, it was the same in the ending as it was when the Reapers were first introduced.

Speaking just for me: Of course, Shep doesn´t like the procedure the reapers have choosen to preserve organic life. But the catalyst talks the entire dialogue about a conflict between synthetics and organics. This is the "new" conflict. That the reapers are just a solution to prevent "Shep being killed by Legion" ( ). I mean, if this is a reason for war (= context of the reaper conflict), it has to be something real (= current "syn vs. org" conflict).

 

The Reapers and the Catalyst don't truly understand organic life.

...

But victory comes at a cost.

...

Agree.

[themikefest]

The crucible is nothing from this cycle. It was designed by some we don´t know and there is not enough time to explain.

Here's a post I made about who might've created the plans for the crucible

[von uber]

1) why didn't the catalyst operate the relay? It can control the station (like the lift, decision chamber and also shepalyst closes the arms herself ) and as it states, the citadel is its home. Reasonable to assume it can control the functions of it and not rely on a organic species to run itself completely, what with them being all chaos and all. Unless, of course, the catalyst is actually the mother of all retcons and the result of people ignoring the previous 2,5 games of lore and story.
2) who built the decision chamber and why? It's part of the citadel and thus the catalysts home. Why would it build it and the connection point, especially for a device it didn't invent and actively tries to destroy and remove all knowedge of? Especially when that device can end the reapers and not resolve the problem as it seems it?

Sorry if I am over thinking these really basic points, I must be missing something what with all these highbrow themes and all. I'm only a simple soul.

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

One could argue that under-thinking was a big part of the problem in the first place.

[txgoldrush]

The crucible is nothing from this cycle. It was designed by some we don´t know and there is not enough time to explain. So if the crucible makes the organic too resourceful for the cycle to continue, why does the catalyst destroy the plans? Shouldn´t it try every possible solution for the conflict?

 

 

Speaking just for me: Of course, Shep doesn´t like the procedure the reapers have choosen to preserve organic life. But the catalyst talks the entire dialogue about a conflict between synthetics and organics. This is the "new" conflict. That the reapers are just a solution to prevent "Shep being killed by Legion" ( ). I mean, if this is a reason for war (= context of the reaper conflict), it has to be something real (= current "syn vs. org" conflict).

 

Agree.

First off, the Catalyst doesn't know what the Crucible does until its right at its doorstep. Second, it thought it eradicated the plans before. And the Catalyst is right that the solution doesn't work anymore because the next cycle will win before the Reapers even invade. So The Crucible passing from one cycle to another is a huge part of this reasoning.

 

But thats not the conflict....thats the context. Its a conflict of means, not ends. Second, the Rannoch Reaper hints at the catalyst's motives. You might want to pay close attention to what it says, especially with the paragon and neutral options with it. Third, The Catalyst is actually the SECOND AI  on the Citadel Shepard meets that believed in an inevitable conflict between organics and synthetics. You meet the first way back in ME1. So its not even a "new" conflict.

 

One could argue that under-thinking was a big part of the problem in the first place.

Agreed....while Bioware did under think  it, doesn't mean that fans don't overthink it.

 

Too bad Leviathan wasn't part of the main game when released

The only thing from Leviathan that should of been in the main game was the explanation of why the Catalyst built the Mass Relays, other than that info, everything else is fine just being in Leviathan. The Catalyst in the EC is already one big talking codex entry.

 

 

1) why didn't the catalyst operate the relay? It can control the station (like the lift, decision chamber and also shepalyst closes the arms herself ) and as it states, the citadel is its home. Reasonable to assume it can control the functions of it and not rely on a organic species to run itself completely, what with them being all chaos and all. Unless, of course, the catalyst is actually the mother of all retcons and the result of people ignoring the previous 2,5 games of lore and story.
2) who built the decision chamber and why? It's part of the citadel and thus the catalysts home. Why would it build it and the connection point, especially for a device it didn't invent and actively tries to destroy and remove all knowedge of? Especially when that device can end the reapers and not resolve the problem as it seems it?

Sorry if I am over thinking these really basic points, I must be missing something what with all these highbrow themes and all. I'm only a simple soul.

Once again, the narrative only gave the Catalyst the power of enthrallment. Second, it directed the Reapers to build the Mass Relays, so it itself originally could not have had a mass relay before the Reapers built one at the Citadel. So, its basically a director of thralls, nothing more. The narrative doesn't assign him anything more.

 

Third, just because Vigil and Sovereign is contradicted doesn't mean its a plot hole or even a retcon. Characters can be wrong. This is what people are not getting. ME1's lore is driven by character conversation, which wasn't a good thing. Bioware still has this problem, but ME3 had more "showing things" instead of just telling them.

[Big Magnet]

I'm trying NOT to think about the ending man! I'm trying to forget!  

 

I thought I was clean but then last week I watched Terminator Genisys and what do I see? A projection of "Skynet" in the form of... A Goddamn Starchild!  I almost threw my drink at the screen >.<

[Dantriges]

The intelligence raised his sword over his head and said "By the power of the narrative, I´ve got the power of enthrallment." Then he turned into the Catalyst.

 

Ah  well, when I don´t want to overthink it, the explanation "short on time + no clue how it should end during most of the trilogy = piece of crap" is enough.

[txgoldrush]

The intelligence raised his sword over his head and said "By the power of the narrative, I´ve got the power of enthrallment." Then he turned into the Catalyst.

 

Ah  well, when I don´t want to overthink it, the explanation "short on time + no clue how it should end during most of the trilogy = piece of crap" is enough.

Or maybe it has that power from its creators.

 

Or maybe the ending is not for the normal Bioware fanbase who wants parades or parties at the end of their games.

[GarrusIsABadass]

Still prefer The Destroy ending

[themikefest]

Or maybe the ending is not for the normal Bioware fanbase who wants parades or parties at the end of their games.

Who are these  normal people you speak of that want parades and parties?

[von uber]

Once again, the narrative only gave the Catalyst the power of enthrallment. Second, it directed the Reapers to build the Mass Relays, so it itself originally could not have had a mass relay before the Reapers built one at the Citadel. So, its basically a director of thralls, nothing more. The narrative doesn't assign him anything more.

Third, just because Vigil and Sovereign is contradicted doesn't mean its a plot hole or even a retcon. Characters can be wrong. This is what people are not getting. ME1's lore is driven by character conversation, which wasn't a good thing. Bioware still has this problem, but ME3 had more "showing things" instead of just telling them.

Sorry, you are completely wrong. The game demonstrates that the catalyst can control the citadel.
Secondly it has direct control of the reapers - the ones which are supposed to activate the home of the catalyst as it seemingly can't do it itself. That's just bonkers.
As pointed out by another poster, as sovereign is humping the tower the catalyst must have been directing it to do so. It's so ridiculous it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Sovereign is not a character, it's supposed to be am advanced a.I. , although apparently not advanced enough to know it is just a thrall. The same for harbinger too.
Face it: the catalyst completely dumps over the established lore, retcons everything, makes the prior games make no sense whatsoever and introduces far too many "why did... why doesn't.." questions.
I admire your dogged defence of it i really do.

The best thing would have been them to leave it as vigil says: "In the end what does it matter what their motives are." Leaving them as a mystery with motives only hinted at (I see a race of machines using organics to reproduce, I. E. a weird apex predator) as being much more frightening than some daft programme created by a giant squid creature.
Playing through mass effect as i am right now it's hard to be frightened of sovereign when apparently it's just a slave of a ridiculous programme. If it had been am independent nation thinking nothing of organic life except as something to be harvested the playthrough would be much more interesting.
The problem is I know all the build up is going to get thrown out of the airlock. It's so depressing.

[txgoldrush]

Sorry, you are completely wrong. The game demonstrates that the catalyst can control the citadel.
Secondly it has direct control of the reapers - the ones which are supposed to activate the home of the catalyst as it seemingly can't do it itself. That's just bonkers.
As pointed out by another poster, as sovereign is humping the tower the catalyst must have been directing it to do so. It's so ridiculous it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Sovereign is not a character, it's supposed to be am advanced a.I. , although apparently not advanced enough to know it is just a thrall. The same for harbinger too.
Face it: the catalyst completely dumps over the established lore, retcons everything, makes the prior games make no sense whatsoever and introduces far too many "why did... why doesn't.." questions.
I admire your dogged defence of it i really do.

The best thing would have been them to leave it as vigil says: "In the end what does it matter what their motives are." Leaving them as a mystery with motives only hinted at (I see a race of machines using organics to reproduce, I. E. a weird apex predator) as being much more frightening than some daft programme created by a giant squid creature.
Playing through mass effect as i am right now it's hard to be frightened of sovereign when apparently it's just a slave of a ridiculous programme. If it had been am independent nation thinking nothing of organic life except as something to be harvested the playthrough would be much more interesting.
The problem is I know all the build up is going to get thrown out of the airlock. It's so depressing.

You are not getting it. Being "some daft programme created by a giant squid creature" fits the Mass Effect universe far better than "oh lets make a scary villain for the sake of antagonism". That works with something like Kefka, because it fits the story of his game, but Mass Effect is about things going wrong, about things turning against those who try to control them.

 

If the Catalyst dumps over established lore than who runs the Keepers in ME1? Something or someone has to run them.

 

Here is the fact here: The lore wasn't established. You really can't establish lore truly through what characters say, but through plot action, because characters can be contradicted. Hell, Tali's explanation of the history with the geth in ME1 was contradicted in ME3, but no one complains about that. Same thing with Vigil being contradicted. Hell in Empire Strikes Back, doesn't Vader contradict what Obi Won says in New Hope about Luke's father?

 

The game does not demonstrate that the Catalyst itself controls the Citadel completely. That's the Keepers job. That's why they are there. And the Catalyst does NOT directly control the Reapers. If it did, why didn't the space battle stop while the Catalyst was talking to Shepard? The Reapers seem to be AI built from an AI, programmed to follow a directive but not controlled completely by its creator. The Reapers run on directive and goals. You are not grasping the concept here. The methods of control are broad.

 

Let me asks you this...if the Reapers were "independent, each a nation" as Sovereign says, why do they all agree on the cycle? Well, ME3 answers that question.

[txgoldrush]

Still prefer The Destroy ending

I prefer Paragon Control actually.

 

Shepard's explanation here sets him apart from the Illusive Man. He gave himself up to control the Reapers to save others.

[von uber]

Sorry tx, that's a massive amount of headcanon you have there!

[Tim van Beek]

If the Catalyst dumps over established lore than who runs the Keepers in ME1? Something or someone has to run them.

 

Here is the fact here: The lore wasn't established. You really can't establish lore truly through what characters say, but through plot action, because characters can be contradicted. Hell, Tali's explanation of the history with the geth in ME1 was contradicted in ME3, but no one complains about that. Same thing with Vigil being contradicted. Hell in Empire Strikes Back, doesn't Vader contradict what Obi Won says in New Hope about Luke's father?

 

The game does not demonstrate that the Catalyst itself controls the Citadel completely. That's the Keepers job. That's why they are there. And the Catalyst does NOT directly control the Reapers. If it did, why didn't the space battle stop while the Catalyst was talking to Shepard? The Reapers seem to be AI built from an AI, programmed to follow a directive but not controlled completely by its creator. The Reapers run on directive and goals. You are not grasping the concept here. The methods of control are broad.

 

Let me asks you this...if the Reapers were "independent, each a nation" as Sovereign says, why do they all agree on the cycle? Well, ME3 answers that question.

Right, don't overthink the ending!

 

All we have to do is to carefully choose which information we keep and which we dismiss (sorry that the Sovereign dialogue has to go, it was a good one, but: no, just delusions of a thrall!). Then we have to carefully interpret the information we kept, filling the holes, assigning very carefully abilities and disabilities to the catalyst, the reapers, the keepers, the citadel, the...ouch...argh...cough...

 

Sorry txgoldrush, we just scored on my overthink-o-meter, big-time!

[txgoldrush]

Sorry tx, that's a massive amount of headcanon you have there!

WRONG.

 

Only gotten from info from the NARRATIVE...you know piecing things together from dialogue and what is shown.

 

Its the anti enders that head canon, just to criticize the ending. 

 

 

Right, don't overthink the ending!

 

All we have to do is to carefully choose which information we keep and which we dismiss (sorry that the Sovereign dialogue has to go, it was a good one, but: no, just delusions of a thrall!). Then we have to carefully interpret the information we kept, filling the holes, assigning very carefully abilities and disabilities to the catalyst, the reapers, the keepers, the citadel, the...ouch...argh...cough...

 

Sorry txgoldrush, we just scored on my overthink-o-meter, big-time!

How about realizing that characters can be wrong?

 

Is it that hard?

 

Piecing together whats given isn't overthinking. Adding crazy theories and missing the point is.

[von uber]

WRONG.

Only gotten from info from the NARRATIVE...you know piecing things together from dialogue and what is shown.

Its the anti enders that head canon, just to criticize the ending.

You haven't though. You have created your own theories based on drawing your own conclusions.

Face it. They didn't plan the story at all ( they even admit this) and by the time me3 comes around we have a whole host of back story and lore that gets thrown out of the window and forgotten.

You are retrospectively trying to give bioware some amazing vision of a story they had planned all along, which is just false. As I said I admire your persistence (and belief that you have found some amazing truth no one else can see) but it is completely unfounded by bioware's own admission. This is clearly shown by the whole host of lore retcons and contradictions raised by the catalyst.

It's funny that people who argue against any possibility of a conventional victory (the reapers are so intelligent and knowledgeable they would have encountered any tactics ever used against them ) allow the reapers to be so incredibly stupid to prevent the very controller of the reapers (this supremely advanced and intelligent a.I. that has overseen countless exterminations of species) from being able to something as basic as control its own bloody home. It's farcical.

Anyway as I have pointed out the narrative (which you so love to reference ) has the shepalyst closing the arms of the citadel. So the catalyst can do that at least - that's most of the plot of me1 rendered pointless then, sovereign didn't need saren to open the arms at all.

I assume I am missing some deeper theme and headcannoned master narrative here.

[Tim van Beek]

How about realizing that characters can be wrong?

 

Is it that hard?

No, of course not. I don't know whom you are talking to, but at least in this thread nobody claimed that everything that Sovereign (or any other character) says has to be taken at face value and has to be true, for whatever reason. 

 

What I said was that your interpretation depends on a certain choice of what you keep and what you dismiss. Others try it differently and start with dismissing everything the catalyst says, for example.

[Asharad Hett]

Stop overthinking the ending....snip... WALL OF TEXT

 

 

Holy cow dude, stop overthinking the ending.

[txgoldrush]

You haven't though. You have created your own theories based on drawing your own conclusions.

Face it. They didn't plan the story at all ( they even admit this) and by the time me3 comes around we have a whole host of back story and lore that gets thrown out of the window and forgotten.

You are retrospectively trying to give bioware some amazing vision of a story they had planned all along, which is just false. As I said I admire your persistence (and belief that you have found some amazing truth no one else can see) but it is completely unfounded by bioware's own admission. This is clearly shown by the whole host of lore retcons and contradictions raised by the catalyst.

It's funny that people who argue against any possibility of a conventional victory (the reapers are so intelligent and knowledgeable they would have encountered any tactics ever used against them ) allow the reapers to be so incredibly stupid to prevent the very controller of the reapers (this supremely advanced and intelligent a.I. that has overseen countless exterminations of species) from being able to something as basic as control its own bloody home. It's farcical.

Anyway as I have pointed out the narrative (which you so love to reference ) has the shepalyst closing the arms of the citadel. So the catalyst can do that at least - that's most of the plot of me1 rendered pointless then, sovereign didn't need saren to open the arms at all.

I assume I am missing some deeper theme and headcannoned master narrative here.

Why does the story have to be planned? There is no such rule. And stories change. Thats the nature of projects like this. Never was I saying that had the series planned all along. You are basically countering an argument I never made.

 

And once again, with characters giving lore, they are free to contradict it because characters don't really establish lore, they interpret it. This does give the writers freedom to tell it as they go. It is YOU that want to deny them this freedom.

 

I detest talking codexes myself. Its actually a very lazy way to tell a story, but ME1 was nothing but this. The whole game was character told lore driven instead of having significant plot action and showing, not just telling. Bioware in general has a very major problem of this. ME3, while not free from this problem, does better than almost any other Bioware game of not relying on characters to give plot.

 

No, we argue against conventional victory because the Reapers are far too advanced technologically to pull one off. Second, the narrative only gives enthrallment as the Intelligence's power and the fact is through the Reapers, the mass relays were built, many cycles later, explained by Leviathan. Once again, you are trying to add a story point that's not in the game to criticize it.

 

With only the power Bioware assigned the Catalyst, enthrallment, the ending works and makes sense. Thats all you can work with to even try to criticize that plot point. Had Bioware established it has direct control of the Citadel, than you have a case. You don't have a case right now. And whats in the narrative suggests the opposite, that its thralls run the Citadel.

 

Are there still vagueness and unaddressed issues, certainly...but that doesn't mean the ending as a whole doesn't work. As I have said in my first post, the Keepers and their nature are vague as is what the Protheans actually did with them was never explained.

 

No, of course not. I don't know whom you are talking to, but at least in this thread nobody claimed that everything that Sovereign (or any other character) says has to be taken at face value and has to be true, for whatever reason. 

 

What I said was that your interpretation depends on a certain choice of what you keep and what you dismiss. Others try it differently and start with dismissing everything the catalyst says, for example.

But you actually are, and many forum posters here claim that because he is contradicted, that means there is a plot hole.

 

My interpretation is easy, if a character is contradicted through plot action or a higher authority of knowledge, than the character is wrong. 

 

Fans simply put, do not like that Catalyst and Leviathan are the two biggest lore authorities when it comes to the Reapers. But thats a fan problem, not a story problem.

[Tim van Beek]

But you actually are...

Where?