192 réponses à ce sujet

[MrFob]

I really like some of what you have here, but a lot of what I like is in the group of "ideas that are better than Mass Effect but not in Mass Effect."

As I said, lot's of conjecture, I'd have to agree. Yet, I have yet to find another way to make this work in some way (one of the reasons why I don't like the ending).
 

On What is the catalyst?: This is interesting. I've long said the Catalyst is actually a very basic VI because it lacks the ability to think beyond a narrow view and doesn't really process new information. I like your idea though.

Yes, this is the most prominent interpretation I think and it is the one that that is probably the most reinforced during the dialogue. I don't really like it though because it degrades the entire affair even further.
 

On Does the Catalyst exist on the Citadel at all times?: Again, I like your ideas, but it's not what was in the game. I was going to address specific points here, but it's just flat out wrong. The Catalyst doesn't just say the Citadel is its home, it says "...the Citadel is part of me."

Well, now that the crucible is attached and adds to the reaper intelligence through the citadel, it is part of the catalyst.
 

On But the catalyst says that the crucible is only a power source?: I love your idea but it's not what's in the game. The Catalyst is clearly talking about power as in energy.

I don't recall it being made 100% clear..Here is the relevant line:
"The device you refer to as the crucible is little more than a power source. However in combination with the citadel and the relays it is capable of releasing tremendous amounts of energy throughout the galaxy. It is crude but effective and adaptive in its design."
It only talk about energy in combination with the Citadel. How this new capability is brought about is not specified. I do agree that my interpretation is a bit of a stretch but hell, what can you do.
 

On: So if the crucible just added a new personality, like adding a new reaper...: This relies too much on the change to Reapers in ME2. Anything leaning on the plot of ME2 is bad.

Nonetheless, ME2 happened so we kinda have to roll with it.
 

On So does this explain the ending choices?: The Catalyst has not been convince that it is wrong, which should have been the ending, by the way. Contrast the ability to convince President EDEN to self-destruct in Fallout 3. Anyway, the Catalyst is still convinced that it is right and that the Reapers were the best solution. It only says that things need to change going forward because... something about Shepard being there. It still believes in its original premise, but just wants a new solution. However, Destroy avoids the problem. Control replaces the Catalyst. It doesn't want either of these. It wants Synthesis and only Synthesis.

As I said, the crucible doesn't convince the catalyst that the premise is wrong. It only convinces it that the solution (the cycles) are wrong.

 

I want to reiterate here that I don't think this is the ultimate truth or anything. I only want to argue that with a little bit of mind-bending (especially on the power source line) and a lot of effort and good will, this interpretation can work.

Personally, I am happy for anyone who can come up with an interpretation that makes the ending better or maybe even good for them, no matter how much overthinking it takes.

[Natureguy85]

 

Yes, this is the most prominent interpretation I think and it is the one that that is probably the most reinforced during the dialogue. I don't really like it though because it degrades the entire affair even further.

 

Only if nothing else is changed. In my opinion, Shepard should have argued more.

 

 

 

Well, now that the crucible is attached and adds to the reaper intelligence through the citadel, it is part of the catalyst.

 

What? He says the Citadel is part of him, not the Crucible. And he doesn't say "The Citadel is now part of me." He says it is part of him when Shepard says "I thought the Citadel was the Catalyst."

 

 

As I said, the crucible doesn't convince the catalyst that the premise is wrong. It only convinces it that the solution (the cycles) are wrong.

 

I want to reiterate here that I don't think this is the ultimate truth or anything. I only want to argue that with a little bit of mind-bending (especially on the power source line) and a lot of effort and good will, this interpretation can work.

Personally, I am happy for anyone who can come up with an interpretation that makes the ending better or maybe even good for them, no matter how much overthinking it takes.

 

It's the events of the game that prove the Catalyst's premise wrong.

 

 

I want to reiterate here that I don't think this is the ultimate truth or anything. I only want to argue that with a little bit of mind-bending (especially on the power source line) and a lot of effort and good will, this interpretation can work.

Personally, I am happy for anyone who can come up with an interpretation that makes the ending better or maybe even good for them, no matter how much overthinking it takes.

 

As I said in the thread you linked to, it isn't our job to wildly imagine things to fill plot holes. That can be fine for minor things, but not major plot points.

[MrFob]

it isn't our job to wildly imagine things to fill plot holes.

I like to think of it as a hobby.

[Natureguy85]

I like to think of it as a hobby.

 

Ha, well that's perfectly fine. There's nothing wrong with head canon. I only get annoyed when people try to tell me that their head canon is really there in the story and I am just not getting it. Not that you're doing that. However, imagining an explanation doesn't make a plot hole not a plot hole.

[Obadiah]

...
Again, we're not discussing the merits, or lack thereof, of dictatorship, but rather merely defining it.
...

Your definition is wrong. A dictator has absolute authority, not (near) absolute power. Of course some may claim these are one and the same, but that's nonsense. The Shepard AI does not explicitly claim absolute authority - it has an agenda, whether it will claim absolute authority depends on the Shepard Catalyst.

...
However, allow me to turn your second point around. What if your Catalyst-Shepard is the only member of the Council that wants to intervene to stop that Genocide? Will it abide the Council's decision and sit idly by?
...

It is irrelevant.

Just because some entity, be it an individual or institution, acts successfully within some state or community, with or without the consent of others, that does not make the community a dictatorship, no matter how powerful that entity is.

[Natureguy85]

Your definition is wrong. A dictator has absolute authority, not (near) absolute power. Of course some may claim these are one and the same, but that's nonsense. The Shepard AI does not explicitly claim absolute authority - it has an agenda, whether it will claim absolute authority depends on the Shepard Catalyst.

 

Shepard says "I will", not "I will try".

 

 

It is irrelevant.

Just because some entity, be it an individual or institution, acts successfully within some state or community, with or without the consent of others, that does not make the community a dictatorship, no matter how powerful that entity is.

 

It's completely relevant. If the answer is "yes", then the Council is just a sham for show. Remember how in Star Wars, the Emperor kept the Senate around? It would be the same thing.

[Obadiah]

Shepard says "I will", not "I will try".
...

Doesn't really say how, tho. "Will" is a mission statement.
  

...
It's completely relevant. If the answer is "yes", then the Council is just a sham for show. Remember how in Star Wars, the Emperor kept the Senate around? It would be the same thing.

No, it is not relevant at all. Individuals and institutions act all the time without the authority of others. They're called vigilantes, criminals, pariah, and rogue states, whose actions are illegal and unsanctioned. That does not at all make the community a dictatorship.

[Natureguy85]

Doesn't really say how, tho. "Will" is a mission statement.

 

True that it doesn't say how, but "will" makes it a certainty. So how will Shepard do those things if the Council disagrees with whatever Shepard wants to do?

 

 

 

 

No, it is not relevant at all. Individuals and institutions act all the time without the authority of others. They're called vigilantes, criminals, pariah, and rogue states, whose actions are illegal and unsanctioned. That does not at all make the community a dictatorship.

 

So which one of those is Shepard? Those groups aren't part of the government or collective. They don't steer the entire society in their direction, unless it's a full on revolution.

 

However, you already said your Shepard would be part of the government (Council) so this entire point goes right out the window.

[GalacticWolf5]

1) Shepard decides alone

2) Shepard acts alone. What if the humans say "No, you can't see what we were doing"?

3) Shepard acts alone. Council including Reapers decides punishment.

 

I literallly said that my Shepard acted with the Council. Do you want me to write a novel to describe how everything would happen?

 

2) The Humans are gonna show it, otherwise THE COUNCIL will make sure they do because that would pose a threat to peace in the galaxy.

 

Again, we're not discussing the merits, or lack thereof, of dictatorship, but rather merely defining it. However, allow me to turn your second point around. What if your Catalyst-Shepard is the only member of the Council that wants to intervene to stop that Genocide? Will it abide the Council's decision and sit idly by?

 

The Council isn't stupid. Their actions affect the entire galaxy, they can't just sit back and do nothing. I'm pretty sure they would't allow any kind of genocide unless it was stricly necessary (like the during the Rachni Wars).

 

Right, why should you say what you actually mean instead of something you don't?

 

Uhm ok... I didn't say something I didn't mean, I just didn't go into details. I had already said that Shepard acted with the Council.

 

What does it matter if it was a long time ago and decided by a different council? We're talking about an Institution called the Citadel Council that has changing members. What if the current or next council is of a similar mindset to that one? How do you know every Rachnii wanted to fight? What if some were just soldiers following their orders? Late in the war, they are just defending their homes.

 

The Rachni are a hive mind, they are guided by the Queens so they do what the Queens want them to do. Looks like the Queens wanted the Rachni to expand through out the galaxy. The Rachni were extremily hostile and conquered many Council worlds. When the Krogans jumped in and pushed back the Rachni to Suen, the Queens refused to surrender and didn't plan on stopping what they were doing.

 

(Of course now we know that the Rachni Wars didn't happen because the Rachni were hostile. They were controlled by either the Reapers or the Leviathans. I'd say the Leviathans.)

 

As for the Rachnii extinction being justified, why does the Turian councilor get mad if Shepard kills the Queen then?

 

He gets mad either way sooo

 

Why wipe out the Rachnii if they've been isolated from the rest of the galaxy via closing the Relay?

 

The Relay is deactivated so that no Rachni go out of their system or no one comes in their system while THE COUNCIL investigates.

 

If, like in the example I had given, the Rachni are truly hostile for no reason at all then they are threat to the galaxy and so they are eradicated. The Relay can be activated again after that because there's no danger anymore.

 

Because the Yahg are pre-spaceflight. Just because they didn't have the means (yet) doesn't meant they didn't have the will.

 

That's just pure speculation, we can't say anything for sure about the Yahg.

[GalacticWolf5]

Here are the Paragon and Renegade epilogue dialogues. Lines that are bolded are different.

 

Spoiler

 

PARAGON

 

Eternal. Infinite. Immortal.

The man I was used these words, but only now do I truly understand them.

And only now do I undersant the full extent of his sacrifice.

Through his death, I was created.

Through my birth, his thoughts are freed.

They guide me now, give me reason, direction.

Just as he gave direction to the ones who followed him, the ones who helped him achieve his purpose.

Now my purpose.

To give the many hope for a future.

To ensure that all have a voice in their future.

The man I was knew that he could only achieve this by becoming something greater.

There is power in control.

There is wisdom in harnessing the strenghts of your enemy.

I will rebuild what the many have lost.

I will create a future with limitless possibilities.

I will protect and sustain.

I will act as a guardian for the many.

And throughout it all, I will never forget.

I will remember the ones who sacrificed themselves so that the many could survive.

And I will watch over the ones who live on.

Those who carry the memory of the man I once was.

The man who gave up his life to become the one who could save the many.

 

Spoiler

 

RENEGADE

 

Eternal. Infinite. Immortal.

The man I was used these words, but only now do I truly understand them.

And only now do I comptrehend the full potential of his decision.

Through his death, I was created.

Through my birth, his thoughts are freed.

They guide me now, give me reason, direction.

Just as he gave direction to the ones who followed him, the ones who helped him achieves his purpose.

Now my purpose.

To provide the many with a powerful leader.

To put an end to the bickering of the many.

To ensure the strongest are not feared or reviled for their strenght.

The man I was knew that he could only achieve this by becoming something greater.

There is power in control.

There is wisdom in harnessing the strenght of your enemy.

I will restore what the many have fought for.

I will lead an army that no one will dare oppose.

I will protect, defend.

I will destroy those who theaten the future of the many.

And throughout it all, I will never forget.

I will remember the ones who fought so that the many could survive.

And I will keep a watchful eye over the ones who live on.

Those who carry the memory of the man I once was.

The man who fought to become the one who could lead the many.

 

In conclusion,

 

Paragon

 

No indication of dictatorship. Player is free to decide if his/her Shepard becomes a benevolent dictator or not.

 

Renegade

 

Clear indication of dictatorship.

[Dantriges]

The Council isn't stupid. Their actions affect the entire galaxy, they can't just sit back and do nothing.

 

Ah Reapers, we dismissed that claim.

 

We are talking about the same council, or? Even when you swap them out, the policy of their successors is pretty much the same.

[GalacticWolf5]

Ah Reapers, we dismissed that claim.

 

We are talking about the same council, or? Even when you swap them out, the policy of their successors is pretty much the same.

 

Back then, the Council judged they didn't have enough proof that the Reapers really existed.

[Monica21]

Here are the Paragon and Renegade epilogue dialogues. Lines that are bolded are different.

 

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

 

In conclusion,

 

Paragon

 

No indication of dictatorship. Player is free to decide if his/her Shepard becomes a benevolent dictator or not.

 

Renegade

 

Clear indication of dictatorship.

 

And again, in both cases, it's Control Shep saying "I will..." over and over again. Not once is there a mention of working with the Council. Not once is there a mention of any kind of authority other than Control Shep. Shepard is a new entity entirely. Why would he bother with the Council? Why bother with the inner workings of mortals? You can certainly head canon that your Shep will step back from his newfound galactic power but that's not what he says at all. Both endings indicate direct involvement.

[Obadiah]

And again, in both cases, it's Control Shep saying "I will..." over and over again. Not once is there a mention of working with the Council. Not once is there a mention of any kind of authority other than Control Shep. Shepard is a new entity entirely. Why would he bother with the Council? Why bother with the inner workings of mortals? You can certainly head canon that your Shep will step back from his newfound galactic power but that's not what he says at all. Both endings indicate direct involvement.

"To ensure that all have a voice in their future. "

[Monica21]

"To ensure that all have a voice in their future. "

 

I will rebuild ...

I will create ...

I will protect ...

I will act ...

 

So everyone has a voice except for those pesky Rachni if they get uppity?

[Obadiah]

I will rebuild ...
I will create ...
I will protect ...
I will act ...
 
So everyone has a voice except for those pesky Rachni if they get uppity?

To give the many hope for a future.
To ensure that all have a voice in their future.
...
I will rebuild what the many have lost.
I will create a future with limitless possibilities.
I will protect and sustain.
I will act as a guardian for the many.

What tyranny indeed.

Can't speak to whatever problem you have with the Rachni.

[Monica21]

What tyranny indeed.

Can't speak to whatever problem you have with the Rachni.

 

I was referencing GalacticWolf's hypothetical if the Rachni got out of hand.

 

But really. What will be rebuilt? Structures? Cities? The Relays? The Citadel? Because you can't rebuild the many millions of people lost. And how will you create a future with limitless possibilities? Limitless for whom? What kinds of possibilites? If I yell, "Hey Shepard! I want a billions dollars!" up at the sky will I get it? Because having a billion dollars would create a lot of possibilities. Will Aria see a booming crime business on Omega because Shepard created "possibilities"? And how will you protect, sustain, and guard? Are organics going to see Reapers stationed in every city? Because that's a nice sight for a generation that saw billions killed. But I guess it'll only take a generation to get over it.

[Stronglav]

Why are you all arguing over a ending that has no logic anyway?

There is no reason in this.

[dorktainian]

I must admit I was expecting Shep to emerge from a simulator at the end of the game, the whole thing being a test of sorts.

[Tim van Beek]

However, imagining an explanation doesn't make a plot hole not a plot hole.

Meta: It would seem that some discussions suffer from different definitions of central concepts. I think it is or at least should be a central topic in the study of the arts, that one has to define those first, before one starts any kind of discussion or consideration. 

 

We can see that happening in this thread with the concept of "dictator" (is it about power? authority? abuse of authority?). I've seen this happening with "plot hole", too (let's not start with DEM). Of course one can define "plot hole" in several ways:

 

1. It blows the willing suspension of disbelief out of the water in real time, i.e. while watching. Obviously this is subjective. This is the definition used over here: http://tvtropes.org/...p/Main/PlotHole.

 

2. It is a gap in the story that may be noticed only later. This is called "fridge logic" over at TV tropes: http://tvtropes.org/...ain/FridgeLogic

 

3. It is a gap in the story that cannot be filled, by whatever effort, no matter when it is noticed (that seems to be the definition Mr. Fob is using).

 

Definitions like that are not right or wrong, but useful or less useful (or nonsense, in extreme cases). Changing the definition does not change the topic that is discussed, but only the words used to describe it. 

 

We can agree on definition no. 3, and then agree that there aren't many serious plot holes in the ME:3 ending. That's just a change of wording, it does not change anyhting about the ME:3 ending being a mess  .

[Tim van Beek]

In conclusion,

 

Paragon

 

No indication of dictatorship. Player is free to decide if his/her Shepard becomes a benevolent dictator or not.

 

Renegade

 

Clear indication of dictatorship.

It is interesting that you draw the line between the Paragon and the Renegade dialogs. Maybe my judgement of the Paragon dialog is biased, because I have read those statements made by dictators, terrorist groups etc. I still think that, if Paragon Shepard intended to act as a part of the council, he/she could and should have said so. It is easy to imagine a statement that makes all of your interpretations explicit. The way I see it, Paragon Shepard is simply more careful (more PC) or more idealistic than Renegade Shepard   .

 

I hope I don't overstep the bounds on this forum, and I certainly don't want to derail any discussion over here by introducing real life politics. This is just an illustration of why I am so sceptical about Paragon Control Shepard's future success. It is an interview of President Assad by German newspaper Der Spiegel: http://www.spiegel.d...d-a-926456.html

 

International politics and conflicts are very very complicated, and the few lines that Paragon Control Shepard has to say about this are very very naive, and this bodes ill. 

[von uber]

What if the many want the reapers to sod off and leave them alone forever?

[Stronglav]

What if the many want the reapers to sod off and leave them alone forever?

They can keep wanting.(Did I say that right?)

Bios doesn't care.

 

 

[dorktainian]

Still a better ending than the one we got