3590 réponses à ce sujet

[voteDC]

Relying solely on the Keepers would seem to be a huge and idiotic mistake, given the chaos of organic evolution. Certainly not something a super intelligent AI, created by the super intelligent Leviathans, would have done. Then again the Leviathans were the result of the chaos of organic evolution.....no, getting too sidetracked.

They would have had multiple redundancies in place. If not the Keepers ignoring the signal, would there not have been a plan in place if some xenophobic races had started to destroy the Citadel. What if some race had detonated a Crucible close to the Citadel and erased the AI contained therein. Indeed after millions of years hiding under water why did the Leviathans still look exactly like the Reapers.

The Reapers can track the Crucible plans but miss the corpses of their own people.

What about the harvested races are preserved when each Reapers behaves just like the others.

 

Deep Breath.

To my eyes it is very difficult to reconcile how things were presented in the first game with the two that followed. It can very much so feel as if the first game is in an alternate reality to the follow ups. 

[gothpunkboy89]

Relying solely on the Keepers would seem to be a huge and idiotic mistake, given the chaos of organic evolution. Certainly not something a super intelligent AI, created by the super intelligent Leviathans, would have done. Then again the Leviathans were the result of the chaos of organic evolution.....no, getting too sidetracked.

They would have had multiple redundancies in place. If not the Keepers ignoring the signal, would there not have been a plan in place if some xenophobic races had started to destroy the Citadel. What if some race had detonated a Crucible close to the Citadel and erased the AI contained therein. Indeed after millions of years hiding under water why did the Leviathans still look exactly like the Reapers.

The Reapers can track the Crucible plans but miss the corpses of their own people.

What about the harvested races are preserved when each Reapers behaves just like the others.

 

Deep Breath.

To my eyes it is very difficult to reconcile how things were presented in the first game with the two that followed. It can very much so feel as if the first game is in an alternate reality to the follow ups. 

 

Keepers are tied to the Citadel. Any attempt to study or alter them simply results in them self destructing and a new one being reproduced. The Asari tried to study the Keepers but kept running into dead ends. And since their attempt to study them resulted in the Keeper melting they created the rule to not to interfere with them.

 

Why would a xenophobic race start to destroy the Citadel particularly if they found it first?  How would detonating a Crucible erase the AI inside? Why would the Leviathans alter in appearance? Particularly when they are advanced enough to completely understand gene manipulation.

 

Reapers can track by listening into radio transmissions. Even if they used a laser beam to transmit information that laser would spread out over long distance allowing anyone near by to listen in. Not to mention indoctrinated agents like TIM would spill information that way. Or are you telling me a race of super advanced organic/synthetic constructs can master the technology needed to travel the stars without need to refuel or even use Mass Relays and the ability to break down an organic body into it's base components while retaining neural brain pattern of the person. But they can't hack a WEP security code for a WiFi router?

 

We converse with a grand total of 3 Reapers. Sovereign, Harbinger and Rannoch Destroyer. 3 examples is not a lot to make the claim all of them act the same. But if you want to go that route humanity in general behave just like the others in any given geographical or social location. Pick 3 random people from New York or 3 random people from a concert and odds are you would find people who act as similar as those 3 did.

[ImaginaryMatter]

It would make more sense than killing the Saren hopper leaving Sovereign so vulnerable, particularly when there was no clear need to expose himself like that. It always screamed of gameplay over story to me. That it looked odd at the time makes it a reasonable target for a retcon I think. It would have been better still if it was just the result of attrition on Sovereign though. It would give him a motivation for not just mopping up the fleet before dealing with Shepard (not enough time for that) and would make the Reapers look potentially defeatable, even if it's beyond our current ability.

 

I always thought that the possession had no down side to Sovereign itself and that it's energy was simply overextended at around the same time Saren hopper was beaten -- at least as far as ME1 was concerned. The idea that there was some sort of negative feedback never occurred to me until reading about it in the ME3 Codex.

[Vanilka]

I filled the holes with petty examples because you demand it

 

I'm perfectly fine with general and abstract statements and interpretations, like "if we assume that during the event of ME1 the catalyst had not direct control over the citadel functions and/or the keepers , ME1 plot makes sense". I don't need to further deepen to be an happy fellow human.

I don't need to think up a more detailed and specific explanation: in fact, I really believe that any decent sci-fi writer can give you a hundreds of possible/plausible very specific scenarios, explaining to you why an AI could not/would not t have direct access to the relay.

However, you people seems to be unable to accept general and abstract intepretations, keep asking "why? Where? What? By whom? When? Why? Exactly how? More details, more detalis! Where?".

 

I think this is a little bit puerile, because we are not talking about realilry, but I like debating and discussing and thinking up sci-fi scenarios, so I try to answer to all of your (sometimes stimulant, sometimes unnecessary ) questions, and having good time with it.

If you are not having a good time, I'm really sorry

 

This could've all been prevented if the writer had simply addressed it. It wouldn't have to be complicated or long-winded at all, just...

 

Shep: "Wait. So WTF were you doing when Sovereign tried to open the Citadel relay? Sitting on your hands? Forgot to set up the alarm clock?"

Catabrat: "IDK, man, I can't do shite with this ghosty body. I was programmed to think, not do peasants' work." or "Duuude, those Protheans really F'd me up."

 

Whatever. Anything.

 

As it is, there's just no answers at all. We have nothing but theories and none of us is necessarily right or wrong. I like a lot of what you said in this thread, but there's no confirmation for anything you or I or anybody else said, and I think that's exactly what gets people's knickers into twist in the first place. It's not that it couldn't be explained away. The point is that it just isn't. There's nothing. It reminds me of this line that the Extended Cut added where you can ask who designed the Crucible and the Catalyst goes, "You wouldn't know them and there's no time to explain." THIS is the kind of "worldbuilding" the ending delivered. They could've written absolutely anything, but they decided to go for this, "Yeah, I'm gonna say something, but not actually anything of value." That attitude is gonna tick people off.

 

Many people are naturally going to want answers after playing through ME1 because Sovereign having to open the Citadel relay manually is a major plot point of ME1 and it's what holds the entire game together, then they find out that Reaper OS was actually on the Citadel all along (and the other contradictions, like the Reapers frying everything in sight into dust and spending their free time making messed up terrors that shoot people, don't exactly help). Of course some people are going to be like, "WAAAAIT A MINUTE!"

 

For what it's worth, I think your ideas would be fine, if only they were actually there instead of being just pretty reasonable headcanon.

[Natureguy85]

It didn't make any sense that Sovereign would suffer a complete system failure for the destruction of a single supped up husk when Shepard just on the Citadel has already killed a couple dozen without problem. Even if we take the route it stunned him a bit that isn't the same as a complete feed back over load that took down every system Sovereign had going including it's kinetic barrier.

 

I mean seriously it goes from fighting Shepard and picking off Alliance ships like no problem. To complete shut down with the death of a single possessed husk.

 

On what basis do you say it doesn't make sense? We have no idea what that "direct control" entails, how it works, or how Reapers work. The possession is clearly something different from what we've seen before. There is room for interpretation, or rather speculation, at what happened because the writers didn't need to explain it yet. It could be a simple wi-fi connection, but we don't know.

 

 

 

 

It doesn't violate what comes before. It fits with what was previously stated.

 

It does make sense. To the writers and to me. 

 

 

Yet you can't explain it. I doubt the writers thought through it that much. You just accept whatever crap is put in front of you rather than analyzing it.

 

 

 

 

It's not how you would have done it? Well, there's the problem right there. Bioware gives you their explanation, and it doesn't match what you would have done. 

 

It's dumb. I would have done something better or at least could do so now with the benefit of hindsight.

 

 

 

You're taking what it says word for word. Literally at face value. 

 

Well you only had the partial explanation of synthesis in ME1. While ME2 and ME3 give you the full details. Of course, like the Catalyst, you probably expect the full explanation in ME1 too. Instead of saving it for later. It's how you would have done it.

 

Yes, because I should take it at face value unless I am given a reason not to. At the time he said it, Sovereign meant what I said he mean, just like how Obi-Wan meant that Darth Vader literally murdered Anakin Skywalker in Star Wars. It wasn't until the Retcon in the second film that we had to reinterpret what Obi-Wan said. But notice how rather than leave the audience to guess at what Obi-Wan meant or if he was lying, they had Obi-Wan have one last conversation with Luke where the issue was raised and Obi-Wan explained himself. Mass Effect 3 needed that scene.

 

Synthesis as referenced by Saren in ME1 is a fundamentally different thing than Synthesis the ending option of ME3.  I never said it all had to be fully explained in ME1, but where would you be without strawmen?

[Natureguy85]

because the more a thing is inter-connected with other things, the more detectable/cognizable it becomes.

it's a general epistemological rule.

We know and discover things through thier relations and mutual influences with other things.

 

In order to discover B through it's relation to A, you have to already be aware of A. This is not the case with what we are discussing. The Organics are not aware of A or B, so they are not aware of their connection and that connection does not make them any more detectable.

 

 

 

 

well, of course.

a good F1 driver can become pretty easily a good airplane pilot, yes. See Niki Lauda, for example.

On the other hand, I doubt that a good F1 driver can become a good quantum physicist, yes.

And viceversa of course. A good quantum physicist can become a good nuclear physicist. Perhaps not F1 champion

 

While it's true that certain skills from one will help with the other, this is a ridiculous argument. The F1 driver can't just sit down at and fly an airplane. They'd need classes or training. Flying requires plenty of mental ability. And there's no reason the quantum physicist can't learn to fly an airplane. And why go with two types of physicist? Can the quantum physicist just as easily pick up biochemical engineering or music composition? Could the driver not?

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not saying that the catalyst is unable to send an "on" command. Simply, the "on command" is first received and "filtered" by the keepers.

Could be a necessity born from inherent limitations or protocols (for example, EDI asked Joker to be freed; and freedom changed her a lot. Was the catalyst freed by someone? Was he willing to be freed and face an eventual change or perspective? Perhaps he want to be immutable, static, and this is why he seems to be more like an VI than an AI)... or could be a over-cautious choiche.

 

There's no reason to believe any of those things. You're just making things up out of thin air. That's not intellectually stimulating in the least bit.

 

 

because the more complex yout system/network is (and I fear that the citadel-relay is the most, or one of the most, complex construction in the galaxy, perhaps the apex of technology), the more nodes, connections etc you will need.

Do you realize that in order to work your laptop needs a lot of components, a cpu, a programs, electric circuits etc etc?

When you push the "on" button, a lot of things happen... and if a little internal component  is broken, or a file is damaged, or a code has been changed, you might not be able to control your laptop.

 

You have no idea what goes into it. You can't necessarily force your real world experience onto fiction, especially something unexplained and alien. That can be used as a cheap copout by the writer though, and it is in ME3. So your laptop has no relevance to a Mass Relay.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm perfectly fine with general and abstract statements and interpretations, like "if we assume that during the event of ME1 the catalyst had not direct control over the citadel functions and/or the keepers , ME1 plot makes sense". I don't need to further deepen to be an happy fellow human.

I don't need to think up a more detailed and specific explanation: in fact, I really believe that any decent sci-fi writer can give you a hundreds of possible/plausible very specific scenarios, explaining to you why an AI could not/would not t have direct access to the relay.

However, you people seems to be unable to accept general and abstract intepretations, keep asking "why? Where? What? By whom? When? Why? Exactly how? More details, more detalis! Where?".

 

You're not interpreting; you're just making up stuff.

 

 

 

 

 

It would make more sense than killing the Saren hopper leaving Sovereign so vulnerable, particularly when there was no clear need to expose himself like that. It always screamed of gameplay over story to me. That it looked odd at the time makes it a reasonable target for a retcon I think. It would have been better still if it was just the result of attrition on Sovereign though. It would give him a motivation for not just mopping up the fleet before dealing with Shepard (not enough time for that) and would make the Reapers look potentially defeatable, even if it's beyond our current ability.

 

There probably was some gameplay over story going on there, but we couldn't be sure exactly what actually happened. It was a plot thread that we assumed would have been brought up again later. It was at least something worth investigating going forward. It's not the ME1 writers' fault that the later games didn't bother.

[Ithurael]

this is a common interpretation rule, often used in european (messed and often contradictory) legal system.

it is called "systematic interpretation".

 

 

The systematic interpretation requires a correlation and a comparison because the meaning of the provision is determined taking into account the connection with other provisions.

It is essentially based on the context in which it appears the provision to be interpreted and on the presumption that the legal system is equipped with some consistency.

In other words, we can call logical and systematic interpretation the one that seeks to exclude those meanings that would make the text inconsistent with the system.

 

 

So, you will have to forgive me on this because I am getting a bit confused. First you said there is no headcanon required (player interpretation) and that the material works on its own. Now you are saying there is player interpretation required to make the material work.

 

Which is it?

 

Also, we are not looking at different legal systems. And, looking at the logical flow of your thought in this case I can see what appears to be a bit of a circular fallacy.  You cannot NOT include anything that would make a statement inconsistent. I get that Europe may have different bylaws and different punishments, but Law and Narrative Coherence are a slight bit difference. If I was to make any kind of analogy it would be that we are trying to compare the legal system in Country A vs Country A not Country A vs Country B.

 

If I lived in Country A and then read I could go 45 KM/H then I got arrested because apparently the law suddenly changed to 30 KM/h right after I started driving, we would have a bit of an issue. The same can be found in ME3's ending. We go the entire time seeing the Citadel as the key to the reaper invasion but it is just a tool. Then the writer introduces us to a character that controls the main antagonists and apparently operates the citadel (a key point in the earlier installments) and there is no in-universe explanation for this character not acting in the prior installments.

 

 

 

something being part of something else doens't necessarly mean that there is perfect coincidence and indenticalness between the two things.

 

A I--------------------------------I B

                                      C I--------------------------------I D

 

A-B = the catalyst

C-D = the citadel

 

C-B: "the citadel is part of me"

 

 

Of course, it could be also

 

A I--------------------------------I B

C I------------------------------ -I D

 

but not necessarely

 

 

What we derive from the statement "the citadel is part of me" is that 100% of the Citadel makes up NO MORE than 99.9% of the Catalyst.

 

The issue is not the portion the citadel makes up, the issue is that 100% of the citadel makes up a portion of the catalyst (the reapers obviously fill in the remainder, and even looking at the reapers he controls them completely so...yeah)

 

So, if 100% of the citadel is part of the catalyst then those signals emanating from the citadel (from the citadel) are a part of the Catalyst too, and who responds to those signals? The keepers, who maintain and operate the citadel itself.

 

Continuity Error, thy name is ME3's ending

EDIT: Here is an example of a continuity error in another franchise: Transformers

 

Michael Bay is not known for his interest in narrative integrity. And yes, I know this is an easy target as these are stupid movies. But if you look in Transformer 4:Age of Extinction, at the end Optimus Prime magically gets rocket boosters and leaves the planet to find the creators. Now, he just gets these rocket boosters. This totally contradicts his abilities in the first three movies as he drastically needed flight technology to battle the Decepticons.

 

You can fill in the blanks on your own with your preferred interpretation. However, there is no in-game in-universe representation for this issue.

 

Also, if you work in European law, please send me some write ups on that interpretation concept, That actually seems kind of fun - albeit very messy. God, can you imagine how crazy it will be with GB checking out of the EU?

[gothpunkboy89]

On what basis do you say it doesn't make sense? We have no idea what that "direct control" entails, how it works, or how Reapers work. The possession is clearly something different from what we've seen before. There is room for interpretation, or rather speculation, at what happened because the writers didn't need to explain it yet. It could be a simple wi-fi connection, but we don't know.

 

 

Logic states it doesn't make sense. Why would anyone design a system like that were if your possessed husk is destroyed it causes system wide failure in the Reaper. Even older houses like mine which was build in the 50's doesn't have a complete power failure if one circuit is tripped and needs to be reset at the circuit breaker.

 

Reapers being out classed by technology available in the 50's simply doesn't make sense.

[Natureguy85]

Logic states it doesn't make sense. Why would anyone design a system like that were if your possessed husk is destroyed it causes system wide failure in the Reaper. Even older houses like mine which was build in the 50's doesn't have a complete power failure if one circuit is tripped and needs to be reset at the circuit breaker.

 

Reapers being out classed by technology available in the 50's simply doesn't make sense.

 

 

I see where you're coming from, but that's why I made the point about not comparing it to other known technology. We don't know what it requires for Sovereign to possess and control Saren, or at least those implants. Therefore you can't compare it to anything in your house. It's certainly different than simle wiring. I like the idea that it's not something Sovereign or other Reapers would normally do, but was an act of desperation by Sovereign to get Shepard.

 

This also assumes Sovereign's shutdown is actually related the the Avatar's defeat, but I think we're safe in that interpretation. It's quite strongly implied.

[gothpunkboy89]

I see where you're coming from, but that's why I made the point about not comparing it to other known technology. We don't know what it requires for Sovereign to possess and control Saren, or at least those implants. Therefore you can't compare it to anything in your house. It's certainly different than simle wiring. I like the idea that it's not something Sovereign or other Reapers would normally do, but was an act of desperation by Sovereign to get Shepard.

 

This also assumes Sovereign's shutdown is actually related the the Avatar's defeat, but I think we're safe in that interpretation. It's quite strongly implied.

 

 

But we do know what it takes. It is the same as it takes a VI to control multiple actions at once. Avena the VI on the Presidium is capable of interacting with dozens to hundreds of people at once while being the same VI program. Sovereign was capable of not only using the Saren Puppet but continuing to attack the Alliance Fleet around it.  It was able to direct the Husks on Eden Prime and Citadel.

 

Even a sort of mental backslash to the puppet's death shouldn't cause a system wide failure resulting in the complete shut down of Sovereign

 

Red energy is released for the Saren puppet as it's death. At the same time the same red energy is released all over Sovereign's body causing it's lights to flash and go out. Meaning it was set up for one to cause the other.

[angol fear]

@ Ithurael, once I gave you a quotation from Roland Barthes about what is a critic (actually more on how he should read). Here's something about another critic who was one of the most impressive in the XXth century. You'll find the same thing I've already said with my previous quotation.

 

http://www.fabula.or...rueff_74703.php

[Ithurael]

@ Ithurael, once I gave you a quotation from Roland Barthes about what is a critic (actually more on how he should read). Here's something about another critic who was one of the most impressive in the XXth century. You'll find the same thing I've already said with my previous quotation.

 

http://www.fabula.or...rueff_74703.php

 

 

I know and I have seen that, however this book does not change the standards of Narrative Coherence nor what narrative coherence is. Even Barthes understood how a work or piece needed to logically connect to itself. Barthes liked to focus on what the reader can interpret from the text and build a thematic and aesthetic interpretation relative to the values he sees in the text (devoid of anything relating to the author or possible author intention). But still, even Barthes knew narrative coherence (relative to what he mentioned as the units) as I think he mentioned it in "An Introduction to the Structural Analysis of Narrative". A good read.

 

The issue - as I have said many times - is not interpretation. The issue is logical consistency within the work itself and the competency of the writing. The reader can fill in what they want to make everything work - and that is great. The reader can only focus on the interpretive aesthetic and philosophical points - and that is great. But to claim that the ending holds up to the basic standards of writing and that there are no contrivances, contradictions, plot holes, etc is a bit incorrect from what we have seen.

 

Hope you are doing well

[Natureguy85]

But we do know what it takes. It is the same as it takes a VI to control multiple actions at once. Avena the VI on the Presidium is capable of interacting with dozens to hundreds of people at once while being the same VI program. Sovereign was capable of not only using the Saren Puppet but continuing to attack the Alliance Fleet around it.  It was able to direct the Husks on Eden Prime and Citadel.

 

Avina just relays information. There's no indication that Sovereign was controlling or directing the husks. They are made to attack and kill and that's what they do. That's why the Saren direct control was special.

 

I agree on the light show. It heavily implies a connection between the two events. I am also of the opinion that it was causal. It does indeed seem like a silly design flaw, but it may have been an unusual step for a Reaper to take.We don't know where they were originally going with that plot point and unfortunately, we likely never will.

[AlanC9]

I give you credit for using something established and this require you to make up too much BS. However, the point is that the Catalyst makes the Keepers, at least in relation to this one thing, an unnecessary step. Why send a signal to the Keepers rather than just send the "on" signal directly to the Relay function? At the very least it should be a redundant system, given how important this function is to the oh-so-important task of Reaping.

But this is a problem with ME1. I don't see how using the Keepers as an intermediate step ever made sense in the first place.

[Natureguy85]

But this is a problem with ME1. I don't see how using the Keepers as an intermediate step ever made sense in the first place.

 

I don't see that as a problem at all. Vigil gives a plausible reason for it. You can question if it's the best idea but it has to be imperfect and a weakness because the Protheans had to be able to exploit it. Like I said in a different post, the Reapers' lack of understanding of Organics is an interesting weakness for them to have as the story progresses. It's only totally ridiculous once you put a Reaper mind on the Citadel. If the Citadel is just a structure they built and left there, then it's not that problematic. Yeah, it might similarly make more sense for Sovereign to be able to turn on the Relay remotely, but then they'd just have the Protheans mess with the machine some other way. Remember, they altered the signal, not the keepers.

 

The point is Sovereign sent a signal and it didn't do what it was supposed to do, requiring him to get an agent aboard the Citadel. The Catalyst, on the other hand, is already on the Citadel.

[kal_reegar]

 

 

You're not interpreting; you're just making up stuff.

 

No.

You're requiring others to make up stuff, so you can call them dumb and headcanon and retcon, and show that you've read a couple of books about the rules of good writing

 

The only explanation neeed  is the following: during the events of ME1 the catalyst had no direct control over the citadel relay and or the keepers.

 

If you truly believe that this situation cannot have an abstract, logic valid explanation, in a sci-fi universe, well I cannot help you, nor can ME writers or anyone...

 

 

 

 

So, you will have to forgive me on this because I am getting a bit confused. First you said there is no headcanon required (player interpretation) and that the material works on its own. Now you are saying there is player interpretation required to make the material work.

 

Which is it?

 

 

You don't need to add new things and new informations, of course.

But you have to balance the in-game information. If two informations taken as absolute don't make sense, you need to balance them. Reconsider their meaning in connection with each other.

 

Every sentence can have a lot of possible, different interpretations. You need to choose the one that make sense within the context, imho.

 

 

 

he issue is not the portion the citadel makes up, the issue is that 100% of the citadel makes up a portion of the catalyst

 

 

your heart is 100% part of you (the self-conscious emergence)

Nevertheless:

a. you cannot directly control your heart. There is no immediate response between your will (imput) and the "mechanical" functions. There are connections, nodes, intermediaries..

b. you're not your heart and viceversa. "Being in" and "being part" means overlapping of two different things, not perfect identity. 

If you died, I can remove your heart and put it in the chest of another person. And viceversa. A part of B doesn't mean A=B.

 

So I don't see the problem here... the citadel is part of the catalyst? Yes, of course.

This doens't mean that

a. the catalyst can always control directly every functions

b. they are the same things, conceptually and materially: the citadel is first of all a space station, which exist indipendetely from the catalyst, with his own functions, characteristic etc.

[Natureguy85]

No.

You're requiring others to make up stuff, so you can call them dumb and headcanon and retcon, and show that you've read a couple of books about the rules of good writing

 

The only explanation neeed  is the following: during the events of ME1 the catalyst had no direct control over the citadel relay and or the keepers.

 

If you truly believe that this situation cannot have an abstract, logic valid explanation, in a sci-fi universe, well I cannot help you, nor can ME writers or anyone...

 

Genre is not an argument. The story must address the issue. It is too important to be left for us to speculate, wonder, or BS our way through. It could be almost anything, but having it not even addressed makes it look like the characters haven't been paying attention or don't remember earlier events.

 

 

 

You don't need to add new things and new informations, of course.

But you have to balance the in-game information. If two informations taken as absolute don't make sense, you need to balance them. Reconsider their meaning in connection with each other.

 

Every sentence can have a lot of possible, different interpretations. You need to choose the one that make sense within the context, imho.

 

Somewhat, but the alternative still has to make sense. It's usually better if the story addresses it. Now you'll say that it makes sense to you but that's because you'll accept everything no matter how preposterous or lazy. And that's what the "Catalyst wasn't awake" excuse is. It may work, but it's so lazy.

[Ithurael]

You don't need to add new things and new informations, of course.

But you have to balance the in-game information. If two informations taken as absolute don't make sense, you need to balance them. Reconsider their meaning in connection with each other.

 

Every sentence can have a lot of possible, different interpretations. You need to choose the one that make sense within the context, imho.

 

Kal, if two pieces of information do not make sense, you have a continuity issue. Perhaps the work wasn't peer reviewed. It is not the responsibility of the reader to ensure the writer is competent at their job (of writing). You do not buy a car and then praise the vendor when you see it has 100k miles on it when the vendor originally stated it would be 5k do you?

 

What you are doing here is Active Suspension of Disbelief. This is okay to do - for you. But to say that the items you are making work is what the material actually says is untrue and dishonest. You can have this interpretation if you want, but give me a codex entry, a cutscene, etc to prove this notion from the material - not your interpretation of it. From what I have seen, you are postulating a circular fallacy as a way to remove the obvious contradiction.

 

 

 

your heart is 100% part of you (the self-conscious emergence)

Nevertheless:

a. you cannot directly control your heart. There is no immediate response between your will (imput) and the "mechanical" functions. There are connections, nodes, intermediaries..

b. you're not your heart and viceversa. "Being in" and "being part" means overlapping of two different things, not perfect identity. 

If you died, I can remove your heart and put it in the chest of another person. And viceversa. A part of B doesn't mean A=B.

 

AI/Machine =/= human. The reapers are part of it too and it controls them absolutly based on what we have seen. You are essentially making a false comparison to attempt to counter. It doesn't work bud.

 

 

So I don't see the problem here... the citadel is part of the catalyst? Yes, of course.

This doens't mean that

a. the catalyst can always control directly every functions

b. they are the same things, conceptually and materially: the citadel is first of all a space station, which exist indipendetely from the catalyst, with his own functions, characteristic etc.

 

100% of the citadel is part of the catalyst (the reapers being the other part most likely).

The keepers respond to signals emanating from the citadel

The keepers operate and maintain the citadel

 

For option A - do we have any proof? In ME3 we see it opening the arms, raising platforms, etc I think you are intentionally just trying to make it work without reviewing the details.

 

For option B, that bolded/underlined part is unsubstantiated unless I have proof from the material that it exists independently from the catalyst. Especially when the catalyst says 100% of the citadel is part of him.

 

We can use our imaginations to fill in the gaps on lore issues, this is essentially what suspension of disbelief is. Tolkien believed that if a reader had to do this the writer already screwed up as now the reader had to focus on making the writers work logical even when they messed it up (ala secondary world). Suspension of disbelief will happen, but that does not mean the work is consistent on how well we fill in for it. Look at my transformers example, we could just say Optimus got the jet boosters when he had Jetfire's parts put on him and just never used them in Dark of the Moon. We could say that - it is not proven by the material, but we could if we wanted to Make It Work.

 

Basically, if a writer does not pay attention to what they wrote prior, why should the reader pay attention to what they write after?

[Natureguy85]

 

 

What you are doing here is Active Suspension of Disbelief. This is okay to do - for you. But to say that the items you are making work is what the material actually says is untrue and dishonest. You can have this interpretation if you want, but give me a codex entry, a cutscene, etc to prove this notion from the material - not your interpretation of it. From what I have seen, you are postulating a circular fallacy as a way to remove the obvious contradiction.

 

That's just it; this is not interpretation, but rather is inventing the narrative.

 

 

 

 

100% of the citadel is part of the catalyst (the reapers being the other part most likely).

The keepers respond to signals emanating from the citadel

The keepers operate and maintain the citadel

 

I understood it to mean that it was his body, as distinct from whatever actually contains its "mind" or AI core. Obviously that machinery would still be on the Citadel, but distinct from what we understand the Citadel, the structure, to be. I don't think it considered the Reapers to be "part" of it, though you could still interpret it that way.

 

 

We can use our imaginations to fill in the gaps on lore issues, this is essentially what suspension of disbelief is. Tolkien believed that if a reader had to do this the writer already screwed up as now the reader had to focus on making the writers work logical even when they messed it up (ala secondary world). Suspension of disbelief will happen, but that does not mean the work is consistent on how well we fill in for it. Look at my transformers example, we could just say Optimus got the jet boosters when he had Jetfire's parts put on him and just never used them in Dark of the Moon. We could say that - it is not proven by the material, but we could if we wanted to Make It Work.

 

Basically, if a writer does not pay attention to what they wrote prior, why should the reader pay attention to what they write after?

 

 I didn't see the 4th one but because Prime uses a different method of flying in 3, it's ridiculous to say he gained permanent flight power from Jetfire's wings in 2. You'd not only be planting something that isn't supported positively by the narrative, its something that is weakened, if not outright contradicted, by the narrative.

 

As for Tolkien, I think you're wrong about his views on filling in gaps on lore (you may just mean "continuity here). His works are steeped with lore and history that are not explained or expounded on within the works they are mentioned, if at all. But there is a difference between filling in the lore, as in history or side stories, and filling in the narrative, which is the story actively being told. Imagine, for example, if they never made it clear that Bilbo finds the Ring, and puts it on and it makes the wearer invisible, but instead just said Gollum stopped being able to see Bilbo. Those are key points and we'd be scratching our heads at the imagined scenario.

 

I like the last line though. It's similar to my statement that if a writer  or character doesn't care about something, why should I? This is a great example in why I can't get invested in the fact that Shepard died.

[kal_reegar]

 

Somewhat, but the alternative still has to make sense. It's usually better if the story addresses it. Now you'll say that it makes sense to you but that's because you'll accept everything no matter how preposterous or lazy. And that's what the "Catalyst wasn't awake" excuse is. It may work, but it's so lazy.

 

But I prefer lazy rather than illogical.

Videogame (and RPG in general) usually have so many lazy plotline that yes, I'm quite tolerant about them, as long as they work..

 

 

 

Kal, if two pieces of information do not make sense, you have a continuity issue. Perhaps the work wasn't peer reviewed. It is not the responsibility of the reader to ensure the writer is competent at their job (of writing). You do not buy a car and then praise the vendor when you see it has 100k miles on it when the vendor originally stated it would be 5k do you?

 

What you are doing here is Active Suspension of Disbelief. This is okay to do - for you. But to say that the items you are making work is what the material actually says is untrue and dishonest. You can have this interpretation if you want, but give me a codex entry, a cutscene, etc to prove this notion from the material - not your interpretation of it. From what I have seen, you are postulating a circular fallacy as a way to remove the obvious contradiction.

 

But when you  interpret things you must consider the context.

The catalyst is speaking in a pompous biblical way, using metaphors and simple concepts, like he was speaking to someone very very stupid (the citadel is my home, we are like fire burning, syntehtics will always rebel against creators, soon your children will create synth, bla bla).

These are not scientific, precise concepts. They may represent the truth, but in connection with others in-game, canon info, they may assume a lesser absolute meaning.

 

For example: in the italian legal system there is a rule that states that Ministers are responsible/liable for the acts of the council of Ministers.

Responsibility/Liability, without other specification,  is a legal concept that means both civil and criminal liability. Period.

Nevertheless, there is another rule, which states that criminal liability can only be personal (and not collegial).

 

Are these two rules contradictory? Yes, if you take them literally, as absolute, separated from the rest of the system.

But if you read in connection with each other (which is what everyone does) it simply means that "Ministers are civilly responsible/liable for the acts of the council of Ministers".

 

The same in ME. The catalyst said the "the reapers are mine. I control them". Sovereing states that "each of us is an indipendent nation". They could be both right. But if we take their statement as absolute, one of them is necessarly wrong.

So, IMO, it's not wrong to simply assume a "lower/medium level of control" (collective intelligence, which is in-game info). So, something more close to influence, coordination, rather than pulling strings of mindless creatures like a puppeteer.

 

 

100% of the citadel is part of the catalyst (the reapers being the other part most likely).

The keepers respond to signals emanating from the citadel

The keepers operate and maintain the citadel

 

For option A - do we have any proof? In ME3 we see it opening the arms, raising platforms, etc I think you are intentionally just trying to make it work without reviewing the details.

 

For option B, that bolded/underlined part is unsubstantiated unless I have proof from the material that it exists independently from the catalyst. Especially when the catalyst says 100% of the citadel is part of him.

 

option A: yes, I've a proof: all ME1 storyline.

As I said, something being 100% part of someone  doens't mean that this something can be always and perfectly controlled at will, that nodes and connections cannot be temporarely broken.

 

option B: yes, the slides in destroy ending. We know that the reapers and all AI are dead (so the catalyst) and we see the citadel in perfect conditions, active.

 

 

 

AI/Machine =/= human. The reapers are part of it too and it controls them absolutly based on what we have seen. You are essentially making a false comparison to attempt to counter. It doesn't work bud.

 

doens't matter.

The point is that the logical, epistemological concept of "being part of something" doesn't necessarely imply "direct and constant control" and/or "perfect  ontological identity". It works the same for hardwares/softwares/programs too, btw.

[Callidus Thorn]

 At the time of ME1, it made sense that Sovereign had a problem when he actively controlled Saren rather than relying on Indoctrination. ME2 undermined that but it could have been that using the Collector General as a proxy protected Harbinger and the time between possessions is the General recovering. I'd probably think up a different reason "why," but this could be made to work.

 

I don't know that ME2 undermined anything. The Collectors had been extensively altered by the Reapers, potentially to optimise them for that sort of control. Sovereign was forced to bodge something together, apparently using Geth technology going by the way Saren turned into a hopper. Harbinger and the Collectors seems to be a substantially different process, both in terms of results and apparent mechanisms, not to mention the fact that Saren was dead when Sovereign took over.

 

What Harbinger did with the Collectors seemed more along the lines of possession than anything else, right up to the point that the Collectors didn't really seem capable of containing Harbinger when they were controlled, and may have been simply vessels for that purpose. Sovereign's puppeting of Saren looked to be more along the lines of technologically enhanced indoctrination, with Sovereign using implants to directly control Saren's body after his death. Upon Saren's second death, Sovereign, the puppeteer, found himself tangled up in the strings, so to speak, causing the vulnerability that led to its destruction.

[BloodyMares]

I don't know that ME2 undermined anything. The Collectors had been extensively altered by the Reapers, potentially to optimise them for that sort of control. Sovereign was forced to bodge something together, apparently using Geth technology going by the way Saren turned into a hopper. Harbinger and the Collectors seems to be a substantially different process, both in terms of results and apparent mechanisms, not to mention the fact that Saren was dead when Sovereign took over.

 

What Harbinger did with the Collectors seemed more along the lines of possession than anything else, right up to the point that the Collectors didn't really seem capable of containing Harbinger when they were controlled, and may have been simply vessels for that purpose. Sovereign's puppeting of Saren looked to be more along the lines of technologically enhanced indoctrination, with Sovereign using implants to directly control Saren's body after his death. Upon Saren's second death, Sovereign, the puppeteer, found himself tangled up in the strings, so to speak, causing the vulnerability that led to its destruction.

I highlited the issue: your entire post is speculation. ME2 undermined this by not addressing the issue and leaving it vague. It just showed some things happen and we are left to guess how that was possible. It was the same problem with original ME3 endings. The game showed us how the mass relays exploded but developers said that it didn't destroy star systems. If for example ME2 came first and we saw Harbinger "assuming direct control" of the Collectors left and right  and then in ME1 Sovereign suddenly dropped after Saren is destroyed then ME1 would have the same problem: contradiction. Contradictions need to be addressed, always.

[kal_reegar]

I point out that:

a. when assuming direct control of the collector leaders, harb is not under heavy fire, blasting ships with a laser and trying to manually activate a mass relay. Sovereign might have consumed a little more energy in the process....

b. saren is no ordinary husk. He probably represent one of the hardest boss fight in all the trilogy.  Even the baby human reapers is weaker. He has tons of shields, a huge amount of HP, he fastly jump everywhere firing at you with a sort of semi automatic cannon. Possessed saren: possessed collector = T-rex : fruit fly...

[Callidus Thorn]

I highlited the issue: your entire post is speculation. ME2 undermined this by not addressing the issue and leaving it vague. It just showed some things happen and we are left to guess how that was possible. It was the same problem with original ME3 endings. The game showed us how the mass relays exploded but developers said that it didn't destroy star systems. If for example ME2 came first and we saw Harbinger "assuming direct control" of the Collectors left and right  and then in ME1 Sovereign suddenly dropped after Saren is destroyed then ME1 would have the same problem: contradiction. Contradictions need to be addressed, always.

 

Those speculations come from some very distinct visual cues. Just looking at the process shows some pretty major differences between Sovereign controlling Saren and Harbinger assuming direct control:

 

https://youtu.be/J3CjR4T1GqA?t=38

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=p3h8ZnXLsRg

 

Sovereign needs more build up, there's arcs of red energy all over the place, causing damage to the surrounding area, Saren's flesh is burnt away in its entirety, leaving a skeletal machine construct, and all of this happens after death.

 

Harbinger on the other hand is seen to work through an intermediary. The process of taking control is far quicker and smoother, and we don't see the same cybernetic framework that we did with Saren.

 

Then there's the fact that the Collectors are the product of thousands of years of manipulation at the hands of the Reapers, manipulation which clearly included preparing them for that purpose. Saren on the other hand has to be hotwired for it by Sovereign.

 

And finally, at the end of ME2 we see the Collector General, Harbinger's intermediary, is still there, so we know that the processes don't result in the same outcome if the controlled unit is destroyed. There is plenty that we are shown in ME2 to illustrate that while there might be some similarities, these are substantially different processes, so I wouldn't consider it a contradiction, even were the sequence in which we were presented them reversed.

[BloodyMares]

Those speculations come from some very distinct visual cues. Just looking at the process shows some pretty major differences between Sovereign controlling Saren and Harbinger assuming direct control:

 

https://youtu.be/J3CjR4T1GqA?t=38

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=p3h8ZnXLsRg

 

Sovereign needs more build up, there's arcs of red energy all over the place, causing damage to the surrounding area, Saren's flesh is burnt away in its entirety, leaving a skeletal machine construct, and all of this happens after death.

 

Harbinger on the other hand is seen to work through an intermediary. The process of taking control is far quicker and smoother, and we don't see the same cybernetic framework that we did with Saren.

 

Then there's the fact that the Collectors are the product of thousands of years of manipulation at the hands of the Reapers, manipulation which clearly included preparing them for that purpose. Saren on the other hand has to be hotwired for it by Sovereign.

 

And finally, at the end of ME2 we see the Collector General, Harbinger's intermediary, is still there, so we know that the processes don't result in the same outcome if the controlled unit is destroyed. There is plenty that we are shown in ME2 to illustrate that while there might be some similarities, these are substantially different processes, so I wouldn't consider it a contradiction, even were the sequence in which we were presented them reversed.

So? You say what happened, not how it happened. The truth is, you don't know. Nobody does.