3590 réponses à ce sujet

[Ithurael]

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.

 

 

Context is very important, but looking at the writing and the consistency of writing we see a contradiction. That is where it ends, you are trying to remove the contradiction through imagination and re-interpretation. This is fine to do for you, but it is not fine to say this was the material the entire time.

 

And again legal system =/= narrative coherence. Retcons in the ME universe will happen, while the catalyst does blatantly contradict Soveriegn so did meeting the Council in ME2 contradict the council ending of ME1. They did not plan the trilogy out.  However, in the context of Soveriegn and the Catalyst. We see both of those statements are framed as an absolute.

 

Define:Independent

"free from outside control; not depending on another's authority."

 

https://www.google.c...ine:independent

 

The Catalyst:

"I Control the Reapers, they are my solution"

 

One of these statements contradicts and supersedes the other. You can use headcanon to fill it in, but that is native to you not the material.

 

 

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.

 

 

Lol, so for option A, your proof that the catalyst didn't open the arms is that the arms didn't open? Really? You do know what a circular fallacy is correct? You are forcing - again - your personal biases on the material. Lets keep it objective and just look at the material and how it interconnects shall we. As such, do we have a codex entry or a cutscene explaining how/why the catalyst did not open the arms to let sovereign through? If you can produce this evidence (something that does nor require mental gymnastics and/or headcanon) you win - it is easy. You did, after all, say that one did not need to use headcanon to find this information as it was in the material.

 

Option B, And we also see the reaper corpses fall to the ground. By that logic, does that mean the reapers are not part of the reapers? You seem to be tripping over yourself here.

 

 

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.

 

It really does matter. When people try to present an argument as rational or factual but instead rely on fallacies their argument no longer holds rational or factual weight.

 

You seem to constantly mis-read what I am writing. The catalyst is not controlling the citadel, it is the keepers that do this (that is what I have been showing you through cutscenes and codex entries). And the Keepers respond to the signals emanating from the Citadel, which 100% of the citadel is part of the Catalyst. So yes, this fits lock, stock, and barrel under a logical inference. And it also creates a pretty nasty plothole that requires headcanon to fill in - which you are trying to push as native to the material yourself.

 

Also, why are you trying to push OUR understanding of hardware/software/etc? Our Hardware/software/etc =/= the catalyst. This is, again, a false comparison. We see the reapers are part of it and it controls it them 100%. We see the Keepers respond to the citadel 100%. There is no information counter to this. You seem to again be pushing a False Equivalence and/Or False Analogy.

 

The real issue with the godkid is that he was not thought up in ME1. And Mac is not really known for his attention to canon.

LINK

[Callidus Thorn]

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

 

 

Are you genuinely telling me that without a specific technical explanation of both events(though quite how that would be delivered outside of a tech conference held by the Reapers, I've no idea), you can't tell them apart? That the distinctly differing subjects, circumstances, and visual presentation of the events signifies nothing to you, and that you consider both to be instances of the exact same process? Because I find that hard to believe.

 

Now, I'm all in favour of details first, particularly in Sci-Fi, but there are limits as to what can be conveyed. This isn't like the ending to ME3, where you've got a character on hand who could just explain everything, but doesn't.

[BloodyMares]

Are you genuinely telling me that without a specific technical explanation of both events(though quite how that would be delivered outside of a tech conference held by the Reapers, I've no idea), you can't tell them apart? That the distinctly differing subjects, circumstances, and visual presentation of the events signifies nothing to you, and that you consider both to be instances of the exact same process? Because I find that hard to believe.

 

Now, I'm all in favour of details first, particularly in Sci-Fi, but there are limits as to what can be conveyed. This isn't like the ending to ME3, where you've got a character on hand who could just explain everything, but doesn't.

Okay, let me clarify: it's not enough to rely on visual cues to perfectly understand what's going on.

What the material showed us:
1) Saren is burnt and controlled by red magic;
2) Collectors are being controlled by yellow magic;

3) Sovereign is being shot at while Harbinger is safe in Dark Space;
4) Harbinger uses Collector General as an intermediary.


What we can assume:
1) I could say that each Reaper has a unique color magic that happens when they assume control and it's just Sovereign's color is red and Harbinger's color is yellow.
2) I could also say that Harbinger is more experienced in this thing.
3) I could also say that it was the Fleet that took down Sovereign, not Shepard.
4) I could also say that having an intermediary such as Collector General helped Harby not fry his metal tentacles.

See where I'm going with this? We can assume many things and any of them might or might not be true. We don't know what happened, we can only guess. What I'm trying to say is that if we see a contradiction to the previously established fact then the story needs to explain why this contradiction happens. If you can't come up with the reason then simply follow the previously established rules. You know what would be the easiest fix? Just cut the Harbinger out from the game. This "assuming control" thing didn't serve any purpose in the story but to drop some "cool" one liners.

[Callidus Thorn]

Okay, let me clarify: it's not enough to rely on visual cues to perfectly understand what's going on.

What the material showed us:
1) Saren is burnt and controlled by red magic;
2) Collectors are being controlled by yellow magic;
3) Sovereign is being shot at while Harbinger is safe in Dark Space;
4) Harbinger uses Collector General as an intermediary.

 
When you're simplifying what we're seeing to that extent, you're not going to be able to infer anything from it.
 
1) We see arcs of red lightning identical to those displayed by Sovereign, energy which then is channeled into Saren. Saren's flesh is burnt away, revealing a functional cybernetic skeleton, controlled by Sovereign.
2) Collectors are taken over by yellow energy, affecting their appearance and granting them new abilities and defenses.
3) We don't really have any visual cues regarding Harbinger, save in the dlc.
4) Yup. In such a way as to present it as the conduit for the Direct Control, rather than a vessel for that power, like those we see controlled.
 

What we can assume:
1) I could say that each Reaper has a unique color magic that happens when they assume control and it's just Sovereign's color is red and Harbinger's color is yellow.
2) I could also say that Harbinger is more experienced in this thing.
3) I could also say that it was the Fleet that took down Sovereign, not Shepard.
4) I could also say that having an intermediary such as Collector General helped Harby not fry his metal tentacles.

 
Or we could infer that:
 
1a) Sovereign was directly involved in a fashion dissimilar to that of Harbinger, evidenced by the red arcs of energy that were not confined to Saren.
1b) The source of Sovereign's control was solely the "upgrades" he gave to Saren, evidenced by the destruction of his flesh not hampering the functioning of the cybernetic skeleton: Clearly, it was designed to serve just such a purpose.
1c) The process of converting and manipulating Saren took a considerable amount of energy, evidenced by the way Saren's flesh was destroyed, the initial inaccuracy of the energy transfer to Saren(as well as the sheer length of time taken and the substantial visual manifestation accompanying that), and the fact that his body was destroyed by it.
 
2a) Harbinger's method differs from Sovereign's, evidenced by the use of an intermediary, as well as various visual indications.
2b) Harbinger's process is more refined, evidenced by the speed and precision(no tendrils of energy being thrown all over the vicinity) of the possession(for want of a better word)
2c) The Collector's modifications are better adapted to this form of control, evidenced by their bodies not being immolated away to a cybernetic skeleton, as seen with Saren.
 
3) I'll grant you, this part's a big question mark.
 
4) I'd disagree, since that would imply that the Collector General was being used in a sacrificial capacity, which we're not shown. Considering that no adverse affects are displayed by the Collector General, despite serving as a conduit for Harbinger's control, this can be taken as additional evidence of a different method of control, a more delicate application of power(since the General is serving purely as a conduit rather than a vessel), and that the Collectors were modified with this in mind.
 

See where I'm going with this? We can assume many things and any of them might or might not be true. We don't know what happened, we can only guess. What I'm trying to say is that if we see a contradiction to the previously established facat then the story needs to explain why this contradiction happens. If you can't come up with the reason then simply follow the previously established rules. You know what would be the easiest fix? Just cut the Harbinger out from the game. This "assuming control" thing didn't serve any purpose in the story but to drop some "cool" one liners.

 

I would argue that we can see or deduce enough to understand that there is a distinct difference between Harbinger and Sovereign's methods. Do we know exactly what is going on? Of course not. But if what we're shown differs enough to illustrate a noticeable difference, then there is no contradiction. As for the underlined, the simple fact that Harbinger uses and intermediary means there aren't any previously established rules, because Sovereign controlled Saren directly. So we're dealing with a different circumstance right from the start, before we get into anything more detailed. So while we may have seen something similar to it before, we're immediately shown that what we're being shown in ME2 is different.

 

But yeah, the whole Harbinger thing didn't really serve much of a purpose. But then that can be said of ME2 as a whole, really, so what do you expect?

[BloodyMares]

 But yeah, the whole Harbinger thing didn't really serve much of a purpose. But then that can be said of ME2 as a whole, really, so what do you expect?

I guess debate is over then, although I'm a bit puzzled that you defend ME2's approach of addressing new information through visual cues.

[Callidus Thorn]

I guess debate is over then, although I'm a bit puzzled that you defend ME2's approach of addressing new information through visual cues.

 

Well, in that particular instance you'd need a pretty extensive derailment of the plot to get any answers, which ultimately wouldn't hold any significance to anything except explaining why Harbinger doesn't trip over his shoelaces. And since Saren/Sovereign wasn't explained either, they might as well show us enough to illustrate a difference, and leave it at that.

 

After all, it's not as though it was relevant to the plot really. The Collectors were only there for that one moment where we find out what they are, and Harbinger's only controlling them so that a Reaper's actually doing something, even if they got confused about who the villains were supposed to be.

[Natureguy85]

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..

 

Well, with the Catalyst, you get both.  But in this case we're talking about a lazy excuse for an illogical plotline. The plot point is already stupid. It's the attempted fix that's lazy.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Is that a fact?

 

 

 

It's ok in the slides because they rebuilt it... somehow... to try and make it a happy or at least bittersweet ending rather than the new Dark Age originally implied.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Right. The thing with Saren exposed a potential weakness. ME2 said they totally fixed it and it's not a problem anymore.

 

I do see where you're coming from, but I think they just wanted to take that same concept from the end of the first game and use it in the second one. It served a stronger gameplay purpose than a story one. As you said in a later post, it was barely more than to show that the Reapers were awake and involved.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

I question how much we can take from those visual cues. You could be right, but they could be nothing more than a change in art. There are enough similarities to support that. Notice particularly how the Harbinger body fizzles away like Saren's did. Also recall that there is plenty of reason to think that the writers of ME2 and 3 didn't play the first game.

[kal_reegar]

 

Context is very important, but looking at the writing and the consistency of writing we see a contradiction. That is where it ends, you are trying to remove the contradiction through imagination and re-interpretation. This is fine to do for you, but it is not fine to say this was the material the entire time.

 

And again legal system =/= narrative coherence. Retcons in the ME universe will happen, while the catalyst does blatantly contradict Soveriegn so did meeting the Council in ME2 contradict the council ending of ME1. They did not plan the trilogy out.  However, in the context of Soveriegn and the Catalyst. We see both of those statements are framed as an absolute.

 

Define:Independent

"free from outside control; not depending on another's authority."

 

https://www.google.c...ine:independent

 

The Catalyst:

"I Control the Reapers, they are my solution"

 

One of these statements contradicts and supersedes the other. You can use headcanon to fill it in, but that is native to you not the material.

 

are you human or are you a computer program?

 

really, there is nothing headcanon in considering by whom, where and when certain things are stated. Context and naunces ARE literature.

 

Imagine you are in 1949.

You meet the Poland US Ambassador. You ask him: what is Poland? He answers, trying to impress you: Poland in a free, indipendent nation, ancient and proud. He is right, of course. Poland was indeed a free and indipendent state.

Next week, you meet Stalin. You ask him: what is Poland? He answers, trying to impress you: Poland? Poland is mine. I control it. He is right too, of course.

So, is there a contradiction? Are one of them necessarly wrong? Is one of these people a stupid? A liar? Is Stalin a retcon? Of course not.

Poland was an indipendent state, with its government, laws, administration, culture and traditions (and in this, different from Siberia,for example), but under strong Soviet Russia influence (and in this, different from Canada, for example).

 

 

 

Lol, so for option A, your proof that the catalyst didn't open the arms is that the arms didn't open? Really? You do know what a circular fallacy is correct? You are forcing - again - your personal biases on the material. Lets keep it objective and just look at the material and how it interconnects shall we. As such, do we have a codex entry or a cutscene explaining how/why the catalyst did not open the arms to let sovereign through? If you can produce this evidence (something that does nor require mental gymnastics and/or headcanon) you win - it is easy. You did, after all, say that one did not need to use headcanon to find this information as it was in the material.

 

Option B, And we also see the reaper corpses fall to the ground. By that logic, does that mean the reapers are not part of the reapers? You seem to be tripping over yourself here.

 

Option A: exactly.

Probably, the best method I have to discover if you can swim or not is to throw you in a very deep pool. If you swim, I'll conclude you can swim. If you drown, I'll conclude you can't (99,999% certain). Almost infallible. Doubt it? Wanna try?

 

 

Option B: yes, and reapers corpses are not reapers as "harvested races". They are just empty shells. You can probably pick them up and do something else with them. For example: the heart or the brain of the baby reapers was 100% part of him, right? Shepard killed the baby reapers, the brain/heart is taken away and in the end used to build the crucible.

 

A being part of B

=/=

A = B

 

This is basic epistemology.

 

All your comments are based on this epistemological mistake: the keepers answer only to the citadel. The citadel is part of the catalyst. So keepers should answer to the catalyst.

You read it as it was: the keepers answer only to the citadel. The citadel is the catalyst. So the keepers sholud answer to the catalyst.

But the citadel and the catalyst are different, indipendent concept. They can overlapp, they can be stricly connected, but they are not the same ontological thing. One is a space station, and the other one is an AI.

Vigil was referring to the space station. Circuits, metal and vats. Not the self-aware data file living in there.

 

The citadel send the signal to the keepers, not the catalyst.

The citadel being part of the catalyst is something totally irrelevant.

Because the citadel is not the catalyst.

[Natureguy85]

 

All your comments are based on this epistemological mistake: the keepers answer only to the citadel. The citadel is part of the catalyst. So keepers should answer to the catalyst.

You read it as it was: the keepers answer only to the citadel. The citadel is the catalyst. So the keepers sholud answer to the catalyst.

But the citadel and the catalyst are different, indipendent concept. They can overlapp, they can be stricly connected, but they are not the same ontological thing. One is a space station, and the other one is an AI.

Vigil was referring to the space station. Circuits, metal and vats. Not the self-aware data file living in there.

 

The citadel send the signal to the keepers, not the catalyst.

The citadel being part of the catalyst is something totally irrelevant.

Because the citadel is not the catalyst.

 

When Vigil spoke, the Catalyst did not exist. There was no self aware data file living there. Still, the idea that the Catalyst would build itself into a space station and not be able to control its most crucial functions is preposterous.

Out of curiosity, what would it do if somebody stumbled upon it by somehow getting to wherever it is? It can project itself on the exterior of the Citadel, after all. Funny how nobody ever found the projection array up there.

[Ithurael]

are you human or are you a computer program?

 

really, there is nothing headcanon in considering by whom, where and when certain things are stated. Context and naunces ARE literature.

 

Imagine you are in 1949.

You meet the Poland US Ambassador. You ask him: what is Poland? He answers, trying to impress you: Poland in a free, indipendent nation, ancient and proud. He is right, of course. Poland was indeed a free and indipendent state.

Next week, you meet Stalin. You ask him: what is Poland? He answers, trying to impress you: Poland? Poland is mine. I control it. He is right too, of course.

So, is there a contradiction? Are one of them necessarly wrong? Is one of these people a stupid? A liar? Is Stalin a retcon? Of course not.

Poland was an indipendent state, with its government, laws, administration, culture and traditions (and in this, different from Siberia,for example), but under strong Soviet Russia influence (and in this, different from Canada, for example).

 

Looking at the context we see, in the context of ME1, Saren was needed to get to the citadel to open the arms. In ME3, we see the arms opening/closing. The plot of ME1 is now questioned. Also, why are you pushing Literature? What about just straight up Narrative Coherence? Literature, while nice, is a bit to vague from what I have seen. Many people like to use abstract terms so that they can argue around definite factors and try to be correct. We are not looking at philosophical interpretation, we are looking at the logical points presented and how they interconnect (or don't interconnect depending on who shows a superior logical argument).

 

So, the arms couldn't open in ME1, good? Okay.

 

So, where is the citation/codex entry/Cutscene that allows us to see why they are opening in ME3? I am not asking for your interpretation, I just want the actual piece of information. That is it.

 

In addition, you seem to be pushing your own agenda by outright assuming that because the citadel is part of the catalyst (Lets Call it the Catalyst Umbrella as it more or less comprises the Citadel and Reapers) that the signals emanating from the citadel are not part of the catalyst too. How do you come to this conclusion? When 100% of the citadel is part of the catalyst, any signal emanating from the citadel is part of the catalyst as well.

 

This is deduction bud. In addition, you try to reason that the citadel is separate from the catalyst with no proof other than (it is still around post destroy). That logic is not really the most effective as, using it, we see that the reapers must not be reapers because their bodies are still around post destroy. And yeah, the citadel post destroy was pretty banged up at the end bud.

 

As for your country example.

 

If politician A says Poland was (key note here in the word was) a Sovereign state, and we see it is directly controlled by Russia - no real contradiction.

 

However, if (assuming no propaganda) Politician A says Poland is an independent state, but then hear Stalin say it is actually his - we have a contradiction we need to look into. One supersedes the other and - upon review - we find the latter statement it the true one, which is what I have been saying. Both statements are NOT mutually exclusive. The catalyst on the citadel in ME1 CANNOT exist at the time Sovereign needed Saren to open the arms when we see the keepers can open the arms via the citadel's signals (which are - again - part of the catalyst). The issue with the catalyst though, is that while it supersedes ME1, it directly breaks the plot of ME1.

 

EDIT: Also, from what we know of the requirements for a state to be sovereign is that it should neither dependent on nor subjected to any other power or state. If the Poland guy says Poland is Sovereign, but we find Russia is influencing them heavily, we derive that the Poland guy is lying or dumb.

 

Here is my example. The Villain needs to gain access to an orb of great power to take over the universe. However, the orb is guarded by sentry's that he must get past. The Hero defeats the villain in a great fight. Then, in the next installment we find that the villain was just a pawn of the real villain who wanted the orb and was in control of the sentries the entire time.

 

What this is called is a continuity issue. And it does break narrative coherence. You can fill this in with your interpretation to make it work, but that is not explicitly represented in the material.

 

 

Option A: exactly.

Probably, the best method I have to discover if you can swim or not is to throw you in a very deep pool. If you swim, I'll conclude you can swim. If you drown, I'll conclude you can't (99,999% certain). Almost infallible. Doubt it? Wanna try?

 

 

Option B: yes, and reapers corpses are not reapers as "harvested races". They are just empty shells. You can probably pick them up and do something else with them. For example: the heart or the brain of the baby reapers was 100% part of him, right? Shepard killed the baby reapers, the brain/heart is taken away and in the end used to build the crucible.

 

A circular fallacy does not reinforce your postulation that this is logical interpretation buddy. Please look into this further. But to go with the swimming example. If one day you jump in the water (having never swam before) and you are able to swim, you are correct, we can deduce you can swim.

 

However, if the next day you jump into the water only to be unable to swim. We have a continuity issue. Also, the analogy you presented does not really sum up the argument that well. I get you are trying to say you INFER the swimming ability just as you are trying to infer the catalysts control/ability over the citadel. However, if the arms were not opening/closing/platforms raising in ME3 I would be all for this as the information would not contradict itself.

 

Now, I have a funny feeling you will try to counter with "the reapers re-enabled this when they took the citadel". Do you have a source stating this? Headcanon is any kind of reader interpretation that is not explicitly reinforced by the lore. It may sound logical to you, but with no proof, you have no argument. Remember, it isn't what you know - it is what you can prove. You did say that the information did not require any headcanon and was in the material itself.

 

As for option B. This is the redefinition fallacy at its finest mixed with headcanon. Please keep to the lore. These corpse creatures are called reapers. Their bodies are reaper bodies. You are trying to drag the conversation into a subjective arena and I can easily see it coming. And yes, 100% of the heart/brain was part of the baby reaper. The was reaper "destroyed" and is inactive (because plot) and is then re-purposed. In all reality, this does create a continuity error since we know that 100% of reaper tech indoctrinates. Not having indoctrination does not mean that "it was safe" it means that the writers did not really pay attention to their material. Conversely, we know that indoctrination is a signal and somewhat visual. The signal could have been disabled (then again, I really have no proof on this and it is pure headcanon by me) As there is no real known way to disable the indoctrination signal - except the red ending.

 

Sorry, bit of a tangent there. Suffice to say ME2 was not the most informative on continuity and logical process, ME3 was even less so.

 

 

A being part of B

=/=

A = B

 

This is basic epistemology.

 

All your comments are based on this epistemological mistake: the keepers answer only to the citadel. The citadel is part of the catalyst. So keepers should answer to the catalyst.

You read it as it was: the keepers answer only to the citadel. The citadel is the catalyst. So the keepers sholud answer to the catalyst.

But the citadel and the catalyst are different, indipendent concept. They can overlapp, they can be stricly connected, but they are not the same ontological thing. One is a space station, and the other one is an AI.

Vigil was referring to the space station. Circuits, metal and vats. Not the self-aware data file living in there.

 

The citadel send the signal to the keepers, not the catalyst.

The citadel being part of the catalyst is something totally irrelevant.

Because the citadel is not the catalyst.

 

You are right in that A (the citadel) being part of B (the catalyst) does not mean that The Citadel IS the Catalyst. However, you either did not read my wording or are just responding to argue here. This is what I literally said

 

 

You seem to constantly mis-read what I am writing. The catalyst is not controlling the citadel, it is the keepers that do this (that is what I have been showing you through cut scenes and codex entries). And the Keepers respond to the signals emanating from the Citadel, which 100% of the citadel is part of the Catalyst.

 

100% of the Citadel is PART OF the Catalyst and that Citadel has signals emanating from it. Those signals too, are PART of the Catalyst. Signals like opening/closing the arms & raising the platforms that are sent to the keepers who operate and maintain the citadel. If you can present me with an in game citation showing the keepers do not respond to signals from the citadel - you win. Otherwise, I don't think it works for you. Please pay attention as I do hate to repeat myself.

 

As for Vigil, yes I get it, he was talking about the space station. However, that space station - as we later find - is PART OF the Main Antagonists and was a key point in the plot of the first installment. The level of overlap the citadel has to the catalyst is not really necessary (even though you keep placing emphasis on it through a false comparison fallacy) as we know that all of the citadel is a portion of the catalyst umbrella (the other being the reapers) and that citadel has signals emanating from it, that the keepers respond to.

 

Personally, I prefer objective logic to philosophical debates. cleaner that way. However, if you want to invoke epistemology, you may need to leverage fewer fallacies and more deductive (or where applicable inductive) logical models. I don't want to be mean to epistemology, I just prefer logical models over philosophical ones. However, you are correct in your representation of epistemology in that it separates truth from belief relative to knowledge. For something to be epistemologically (that is probably spelt incorrectly) true it has to be actually known and cannot be false (taken as absolute and not an interpretation of it). Source

 

Thus, that is why I only look at the absolute information first and see how it interconnects rather than build an interpretation that makes it connect. What we know is the following:

• The keepers respond to signals emanating from the citadel only
• The citadel is part of the catalyst (the other part being the reapers which it controls absolutely)
• The keepers would be able to respond to the catalysts as the entire citadel (and those signals emanating from it) was already a part of the catalyst.

OR, we can look at the relationship the catalyst has to the Reapers (the other part of it) and see how it interacts with that part and apply to the other part. If the catalyst controls the reapers (who are part of it) this would fuel the belief that it could control the citadel. This belief is then validated when we see it operating the arms and the platforms. With no additional context we derive that yes, the catalyst controls the citadel (how? It could be via keepers or directly. The former is explicit, the latter is inferred).

 

Now this part I am getting a bit confused by because the lore contradicts you and you are really pushing your headcanon. Also, I am seeing a bit of redefinition here. Let's try to keep things objective as possible, we don't want to be intellectually dishonest

 

 

The citadel send the signal to the keepers, not the catalyst.

The citadel being part of the catalyst is something totally irrelevant.

Because the citadel is not the catalyst

 

The citadel (100% of it is part of the catalyst - how much of the catalyst is comprised by it we don't know) Sends a signal to the keepers

 

The citadel being part of the catalyst is something totally irrelevant? Huh? This is where your redefinition fallacy is coming through as well as a good amount of headcanon. Please show me how the citadel being part of the catalyst is totally irrelevant when we see it closing/opening the arms in ME3. And the fact that the reapers are a part of it too and we derive from the material that the catalyst controls them completely (we have no reason to doubt the catalyst).

 

The citadel is PART of the catalyst. To what degree the citadel makes up the catalyst is unknown. I think in your mind if the citadel comprises 100% of the catalyst then your argument looses and there is a continuity issue, however you are trying to leverage headcanon (and redefinition) to say that the citadel is NOT 100% of the catalyst therefore the keeepers will not respond to the catalyst.

 

However, the issue with this is the lore contradicts you - again. For one part, assuming you are correct how is the catalyst even able to open/close the arms, raise the platforms, etc in ME3? I thought the citadel was like a heart - you have no control over it? You can see where the false comparison breaks your argument both logically and relative to the lore. The second issue is that if we look at the reapers (also part of the catalyst) we see it controls them completely. From this we actually derive the following deductive statement:

 

Anything that is part of the catalyst is controlled by the catalyst

The Reapers are part of the catalyst

The Reapers are controlled by the catalyst

 

I really do think if I was to make this statement in another thread that we weren't having this discussion - you would raise no issues to it, that is just my opinion though. This is the second deductive statement that you will have issues with:

 

Anything that is part of the catalyst is controlled by the catalyst

The Citadel is part of the Catalyst

The Citadel is controlled by the Catalyst

 

Thirdly, even if we remove direct control (which seems to be heavily inferred) we have the keepers, responding to signals that are 100% coming from something that is part of the catalyst (and the reaper mastermind). If the reaper mastermind has part of it sending signals to the keepers, how could it not open the arms? I will tell you it was NOT the prothean sabotage. It was the writers potentially not peer reviewing their work - or just hoping people would just "go with it" IDK, I am not one of the writers so I can only speculate on intent. What I can do is look at what they write objectively and see how it interacts with previous parts of the narrative. Narrative Coherence - as we know - is the logical consistency of a narrative (or how logical and consistent a narrative stays to itself).

 

I love your gumption, but objectively, anyway you slice this is a continuity issue. In addition, you did explicitly state that we did not need headcanon to show there is no continuity issue, however looking at your posts you say we needed "logical interpretation" to "make it work" and you are using logical fallacies to back up your claim (thus tarnishing and breaking your statement about a logical approach as fallacies are not logical). You have, essentially, pulled a "mac walters" (broke your own continuity trying to defend the broken continuity of ME3) In a way, it is actually kind of cool.

 

Here is what you need to win:

- a cut scene, codex entry, piece of dialog that shows how/why the catalyst couldn't open the arms in ME1 (taking the assumption that it was on the citadel in ME1 and - as we both know - not yet thought up by the writers). Not your interpretation.

 

And/Or

 

- A cut scene, codex entry, piece of dialog that shows how/why the keepers are not responding to the signals coming from the station that is part of the catalyst (and also is his home). Not your interpretation.

 

And/Or

 

- A cut scene, codex entry, piece of dialog that shows the catalyst was inactive in ME1. Not your interpretation.

 

Much work you must do young one

 

 

are you human or are you a computer program?

 

That point is an area of much contention with my coworkers.

[BloodyMares]

So, the arms couldn't open in ME1, good? Okay.

 

So, where is the citation/codex entry/Cutscene that allows us to see why they are opening in ME3? I am not asking for your interpretation, I just want the actual piece of information. That is it.

Not to defend Kal's argument but there you go.
5:35


After Shepard defeats TIM, s/he opens the arms via console and then the Crucible docks.

[kal_reegar]

@ Ithurael

You write too much bud

 

But in the end the issue is only one

 

 

n addition, you seem to be pushing your own agenda by outright assuming that because the citadel is part of the catalyst (Lets Call it the Catalyst Umbrella as it more or less comprises the Citadel and Reapers) that the signals emanating from the citadel are not part of the catalyst too. How do you come to this conclusion? When 100% of the citadel is part of the catalyst, any signal emanating from the citadel is part of the catalyst as well.

 

Because there are a lot of signals/messages/codes emanated from my cells and my body (100% part of me), which are totally independent from my will.

I cannot order a cell "stop replicating now" or to an organ "this is a good time to start producing/activating this or that biological component" or "good old immunitary system, please send the Leukocytes to remove that virus"  It's all "automated". It is so automated that a little mistake, a little "error code" could make my body kill me. Against my very specific will.

 

The catalyst as a sentient, self-aware, decision making being, is not necessarly capable of sending specific, detailed signals to the keepers via the citadel. The signals emanated from the citadel as a space stations are not necessarly  influenced by the will of the catalyst as a self-aware, decision making AI.

[themikefest]

Who/what closed the arms after being positioned over Earth?

[Ithurael]

Not to defend Kal's argument but there you go.
5:35


After Shepard defeats TIM, s/he opens the arms via console and then the Crucible docks.

 

Sorry on that, I was talking more via the control ending and possibly after the crucible docks. My mistake. Though, don't Not defend someone because of their platform. Defend the logic, not the position (if that makes any sense).

[Ithurael]

@ Ithurael

You write too much bud

 

But in the end the issue is only one

 

 

Because there are a lot of signals/messages/codes emanated from my cells and my body (100% part of me), which are totally independent from my will.

I cannot order a cell "stop replicating now" or to an organ "this is a good time to start producing/activating this or that biological component" or "good old immunitary system, please send the Leukocytes to remove that virus"  It's all "automated". It is so automated that a little mistake, a little "error code" could make my body kill me. Against my very specific will.

 

The catalyst as a sentient, self-aware, decision making being, is not necessarly capable of sending specific, detailed signals to the keepers via the citadel. The signals emanated from the citadel as a space stations are not necessarly  influenced by the will of the catalyst as a self-aware, decision making AI.

 

And again, you are comparing yourself (a human in our universe) to the catalysts (an AI in the ME universe). This is by all accounts a False Comparison Fallacy. It is not logical. I can do this as well: The catalyst says the citadel is his home, you can operate your home when you are there?

 

You may see the point I am trying to make, but the logic breaks apart. Even comparing EDI to the catalyst doesn't work. Only the catalyst can (and should) be compared to the catalyst. In addition, we already see that the catalyst IS capable of sending those signals (via the blue ending, the platforms, post-crucible docking, etc)

 

Yes, I do write a lot. I have a new Das Keyboard keyboard and I love the sound of it. I just love it.

 

You can continue to like ME - and its ending. And you can continue to reason out the continuity issues - I do this, people do this all the time.

[Natureguy85]

@ Ithurael
You write too much bud

But in the end the issue is only one


Because there are a lot of signals/messages/codes emanated from my cells and my body (100% part of me), which are totally independent from my will.
I cannot order a cell "stop replicating now" or to an organ "this is a good time to start producing/activating this or that biological component" or "good old immunitary system, please send the Leukocytes to remove that virus" It's all "automated". It is so automated that a little mistake, a little "error code" could make my body kill me. Against my very specific will.

The catalyst as a sentient, self-aware, decision making being, is not necessarly capable of sending specific, detailed signals to the keepers via the citadel. The signals emanated from the citadel as a space stations are not necessarly influenced by the will of the catalyst as a self-aware, decision making AI.

This is true but, given everything that came before, is terrible writing. The story should have addressed the retcon.

[kal_reegar]

 

 

And again, you are comparing yourself (a human in our universe) to the catalysts (an AI in the ME universe). This is by all accounts a False Comparison Fallacy. It is not logical. I can do this as well: The catalyst says the citadel is his home, you can operate your home when you are there?

 

Do you have direct experience of an AI called "the catalyst", or organic constructs called "the keepers", or space stations like the citadel? I suppose not.

So you cannot possibly know how they can work and cannot work, together and or individually, and thus is impossible to establish what kind of comparison to our direct, empiric experience is more sound..

 

We only know that In our universe there isn't any ontological and epistemological incompatibility between A being part of B and at the same time A (and/or C, which is something responding directly to A) not being controlled at will by B.

Is there an incompatibility in the ME universe? I don't see why it should be.

 

 

 

 

 The catalyst says the citadel is his home, you can operate your home when you are there?

 

 

Not entirely. For example, there a lot of things in my home which are sending a signal "outside", to other people monitoring and running everything (the electric meter, the gas/water meter, the satellite tv etc). If the electricity company or the distric or HBO want to cut off my energetic supplies/tv channels, they can do it from their offices without my consent. We can say that they respond only to the meter and the automatic signal send by it, even if it is a 100% part of my home

 On the other hand, if I want to change something about my energetic supply, I need to call them in order to see it done.

 

Also, if somone change my locks and/or my keys, I won't be able to open my secret doors without calling a blacksmith...

 

 

 

 

 

 In addition, we already see that the catalyst IS capable of sending those signals (via the blue ending, the platforms, post-crucible docking, etc)

 

 

different time, different circumstances, different "owners" of the citadel, even a different kind of catalyst if we want (sheparlyst =/= catalyst).

 

it's like the issue about husk Saren possession vs collector's possession.

 

A different concrete situation admist (sometimes, demands!) different rules and different outcomes.

 

 

 

 

This is true but, given everything that came before, is terrible writing. 

 

 

I've never denied it... I hate the starbrat. It is totally useless and utterly trash.

[Ithurael]

Do you have direct experience of an AI called "the catalyst", or organic constructs called "the keepers", or space stations like the citadel? I suppose not.

So you cannot possibly know how they can work and cannot work, together and or individually, and thus is impossible to establish what kind of comparison to our direct, empiric experience is more sound..

 

We only know that In our universe there isn't any ontological and epistemological incompatibility between A being part of B and at the same time A (and/or C, which is something responding directly to A) not being controlled at will by B.

Is there an incompatibility in the ME universe? I don't see why it should be.

 

 

Do I have direct experience? No. That kind of question makes no real sense, why ask it? We do, however, have experience viewing what the narrative shows regarding the catalyst. Thus, when reviewing the abilities of the catalyst we can only logically compare the catalyst to the catalyst. It would be a bit inappropriate to compare the catalyst to EDI as they are fundamentally different entities with different abilities. I can only go off of what the narrative provides and what the narrative shows. I try to avoid pushing my personal experience on a narrative (or anything unless it is directly applicable). We see, in ME3, it is opening the arms (flower out), closing the arms (blue ending), and raising platforms. From there, we see the keepers that operate the citadel respond to signals emanating from the citadel (dictating their actions). However, the issue is the citadel (100% of it) is part of the catalyst. Thus the signals emanating from the citadel are part of the catalyst as well.

 

The issue I am seeing with your argument is that you assume that part of == no control or no influence. In the same way that we do not have control over our body functions/symptoms. The issue here is that we see via the narrative the catalyst does influence and even control those things that a part of it (see the reapers). Then we see in ME3 the arms opening, closing, and platforms raising in ME3. This creates a bit of a continuity issue in regards to ME1.

 

 

Not entirely. For example, there a lot of things in my home which are sending a signal "outside", to other people monitoring and running everything (the electric meter, the gas/water meter, the satellite tv etc). If the electricity company or the distric or HBO want to cut off my energetic supplies/tv channels, they can do it from their offices without my consent. We can say that they respond only to the meter and the automatic signal send by it, even if it is a 100% part of my home

 On the other hand, if I want to change something about my energetic supply, I need to call them in order to see it done.

 

Also, if somone change my locks and/or my keys, I won't be able to open my secret doors without calling a blacksmith...

.

 

I know, that is why I was trying to show you why using the false comparison was not a useful tool. We can only look at the material and what it represents absolutely.

 

The keys example could be applicable if we show where/how someone "changed the locks" on the citadel thus preventing the catalyst from influencing a part of him. However, I doubt this exists in the material.

 

 

different time, different circumstances, different "owners" of the citadel, even a different kind of catalyst if we want (sheparlyst =/= catalyst).

 

it's like the issue about husk Saren possession vs collector's possession.

 

A different concrete situation admist (sometimes, demands!) different rules and different outcomes.

 

 

What? How does time influence continuity? We need a representation from the material to show (and/or tell) how and why this new event is taking place. Where do we see that the blue ending gives the catalyst new abilities? Using the conclusion as proof of that conclusion begs the question.

 

Saren was shown to be much different in makeup than the collectors (although not too different). Again though, Saren =/= the Catalyst and collectors =/= Shepalyst. This is why the false comparison fallacy is not working. Saren was shown to be a bit different than the collectors. Catalyst and Shepalyst have not differentiation attributed to them (We as the player can do this to make the lore work, but it is not reflected in the lore).

 

 

I've never denied it... I hate the starbrat. It is totally useless and utterly trash.

 

Now on THAT we can totally, completely and utterly agree good sir.

 

Keelah se'lai

[DMc1001]

I don't feel like quoting a lot, but don't we learn in ME1 that the Protheans did something to take the Keepers out of the control of the Reapers?  That is, they no longer responded to the Reapers.  Perhaps they didn't realize what they were doing but it seems like they were also removed from the control of the Intelligence/Catalyst. Hence, the Reapers and the Catalyst were unable to use the Keepers to open the arms.  That explains why Saren had to be the one to do it. 

 

As for ME3, we know for a fact that indoctrinated agents were all over the Citadel.  TIM, Kei Lang and Cerberus were all indoctrinated.  All of them were on the Citadel at different points in ME3 and there's no reason to believe that the issue about the arms being opened wasn't solved.  Sure, we don't see it happen, but we KNOW indoctrinated people were present.  It seems to me like the issue of the arms being opened was solved.

[kal_reegar]

 

What? How does time influence continuity? We need a representation from the material to show (and/or tell) how and why this new event is taking place. Where do we see that the blue ending gives the catalyst new abilities? Using the conclusion as proof of that conclusion begs the question

 

you don't need to assume that. It's just a possibility.

The simplest explanation is time: between ME1 and ME3 ending the catalyst somehow managed to regain its abilities.

 

 

 

Do I have direct experience? No. That kind of question makes no real sense, why ask it? We do, however, have experience viewing what the narrative shows regarding the catalyst. Thus, when reviewing the abilities of the catalyst we can only logically compare the catalyst to the catalyst. It would be a bit inappropriate to compare the catalyst to EDI as they are fundamentally different entities with different abilities. I can only go off of what the narrative provides and what the narrative shows. I try to avoid pushing my personal experience on a narrative (or anything unless it is directly applicable). We see, in ME3, it is opening the arms (flower out), closing the arms (blue ending), and raising platforms. From there, we see the keepers that operate the citadel respond to signals emanating from the citadel (dictating their actions). However, the issue is the citadel (100% of it) is part of the catalyst. Thus the signals emanating from the citadel are part of the catalyst as well.

 

The issue I am seeing with your argument is that you assume that part of == no control or no influence. In the same way that we do not have control over our body functions/symptoms. The issue here is that we see via the narrative the catalyst does influence and even control those things that a part of it (see the reapers). Then we see in ME3 the arms opening, closing, and platforms raising in ME3. This creates a bit of a continuity issue in regards to ME1.

 

before going on, let me ask you a question.

How does the citadel exactly works?

 

The keepers exists in order to maintain the Citadel and its systems.

They also have another task: when the soverign send the signal to the citadel, the citadel send the signal to the keepers and they open the secret relay.

The keepers evolved so that they respond only to signals form the citadel, which are 100% the catalyst signals.

When the organics on the citadel decide, for example, to close the citadel arms, or use an elevator, they push a button and... then what? Are they sending a signal to the citadel? Send a signal to the keepers via the citadel aka the catalyst? are they sending a signal to the keepers bypassing the citadel? Are they sending a signal to the catalyst?

[Ithurael]

you don't need to assume that. It's just a possibility.

The simplest explanation is time: between ME1 and ME3 ending the catalyst somehow managed to regain its abilities.

 

 

This is not the best concept when trying to reason out a continuity issue. Just assuming the catalyst got the abilities back does not really work as this is again not using anything from the lore explicitly but rather just using imagination to make it work as best we can. The catalyst could also have been asleep/inactive The catalyst also may not have cared. These points I am showing are not reflected in the material and thus no use to discuss. They are - in essence - pure headcanon and or moot. They are fine to use if you want to make it work, but in the context of Narrative Coherence, it does not work at all since we are trying to add to the narrative to fill in a gap.

 

 

before going on, let me ask you a question.

How does the citadel exactly works?

 

I can only go off of what the information tells me and what I can logically infer. I would say it is a bit pretentious to leverage unfounded or unproven assumptions as factually valid. As you referenced via epistemology, the difference between truth and belief is Truth is known and proven, belief may not always be so.

 

 

The keepers exists in order to maintain the Citadel and its systems.

They also have another task: when the soverign send the signal to the citadel, the citadel send the signal to the keepers and they open the secret relay.

The keepers evolved so that they respond only to signals form the citadel, which are 100% the catalyst signals.

When the organics on the citadel decide, for example, to close the citadel arms, or use an elevator, they push a button and... then what? Are they sending a signal to the citadel? Send a signal to the keepers via the citadel aka the catalyst? are they sending a signal to the keepers bypassing the citadel? Are they sending a signal to the catalyst?

 

They do

 

They did, not anymore post sabotage as they only respond to the citadel (like signals being sent to open the arms)

 

They do

 

They are interacting with the citadel (part of the catalyst) which sends a signal to the keepers. Yes I know. You are trying - again - to leverage a false comparison. A signal from the citadel is - and always is - part of the catalyst. Whomever or what ever initiates it is essentially unknown and uneeded. We can see that the catalyst itself initiates these signals which gives us our information that it could have opened the arms in ME1. The signal part is what is coming from the catalyst and the signal (the transmission being sent) is part of the catalyst. You may try to re-argue the human body vs AI, but again that doesn't work as that is - as we have seen - fallacious. Also, I am glad you admit that the signal can open/close the arms. We are making good progress. However, the citadel is part of the catalyst and thus all signals under it would be part of it as well. In addition, how is a signal from the citadel =/= to a signal from the citadel?

 

This is why the catalyst creates a continuity issue. To pave it over, we have to redefine large sects of lore and just ignore others. If you want to focus on inferences, the reapers are part of the catalyst too and it controls them completely.

 

No matter how you dice it, we have a continuity issue. Pave it over in your imagination - that is fine. But don't push your imagination as native to the lore as it is not.

[kal_reegar]

 

he catalyst could also have been asleep/inactive The catalyst also may not have cared. These points I am showing are not reflected in the material and thus no use to discuss. They are - in essence - pure headcanon and or moot. They are fine to use if you want to make it work, but in the context of Narrative Coherence, it does not work at all since we are trying to add to the narrative to fill in a gap.

 

But as long as they are not expressly contradicted, all of these interpretation are fine.

It like "innocent until proven guilty".

 

 

During the event of ME1 the catalyst and/or the reapers need Saren to open the citadel arms and manually activate the relay, because the keepers are no longer under theri control.

During the event of ME3 ending the catalyst can open the arms, use the elevator etc

 

Can the human mind find one o more logical/possible/plausible explanations for this?

If yes, narrative coherence is not broken. It is simply vague, indefinite.

 

 

 

They do

 

They did, not anymore post sabotage as they only respond to the citadel (like signals being sent to open the arms)

 

They do

 

They are interacting with the citadel (part of the catalyst) which sends a signal to the keepers. Yes I know. You are trying - again - to leverage a false comparison. A signal from the citadel is - and always is - part of the catalyst. Whomever or what ever initiates it is essentially unknown. The signal part is what is coming from the catalyst and the signal (the transmission being sent) is part of the catalyst. You may try to re-argue the human body vs AI, but again that doesn't work as that is - as we have seen - fallacious. Also, I am glad you admit that the signal can open/close the arms. We are making good progress. However, the citadel is part of the catalyst and thus all signals under it would be part of it as well.

 

Yes but how does it works?

Put down a scheme or something like that...

 

 

Mine is very simple: not every signal sent from the citadel to the keepers is always necessarily depending from the detailed, specific will of the catalyst (in fact, automatic signals are perfectly conceivable and not contradicted) (1)

Even better: two specific, detalied signals are not working during the ME1 event. At least two of the "catalyst/citadel <-> keepers voluntary connections/nodes" are broken (Saren is needed to take control over the arms; Sovereing is needed to manually open the mass relay)

 

 

 

(1) and I don't understand why this is impossible to conceive, logically unacceptable.

[BloodyMares]

This is not the best concept when trying to reason out a continuity issue. Just assuming the catalyst got the abilities back does not really work as this is again not using anything from the lore explicitly but rather just using imagination to make it work as best we can. The catalyst could also have been asleep/inactive The catalyst also may not have cared. These points I am showing are not reflected in the material and thus no use to discuss. They are - in essence - pure headcanon and or moot. They are fine to use if you want to make it work, but in the context of Narrative Coherence, it does not work at all since we are trying to add to the narrative to fill in a gap.

Why do you bother discussing Narrative Coherence with him? He stated earlier that cooking headcanon is his main purpose. He doesn't care about Narrative Coherence at all. He only wants the story to work even if it requires headcanon. Why not leave him to his imagination.

[Ithurael]

But as long as they are not expressly contradicted, all of these interpretation are fine.

It like "innocent until proven guilty".

 

 

During the event of ME1 the catalyst and/or the reapers need Saren to open the citadel arms and manually activate the relay, because the keepers are no longer under theri control.

During the event of ME3 ending the catalyst can open the arms, use the elevator etc

 

Can the human mind find one o more logical/possible/plausible explanations for this?

If yes, narrative coherence is not broken. It is simply vague, indefinite.

 

During the events of ME1 Soveriegn needed Saren to open the arms for him as they would close during an assault - so far so good

 

During the ending of ME3 we see the Catalyst closing the arms, opening them (flower style) and raising platforms in the citadel. The catalyst is then explicitly mentioned to be the mastermind behind the reapers and the main antagonist.

 

There is no logical connection. When I reviewed your connection I saw a lot of fallacies to back it up and assumptions based on belief. When you use a fallacy, your argument no longer becomes logical. So NO. Narrative coherence IS still broken as there is no citation for use to use to prove our argument. Like this:

- The catalyst was alseep

- The catalyst didn't want to (in all actuality this is contradicted by the lore)

- The catalyst just didn't have control

 

We need some in-game citation, codex entry, something that shows us the writers planned and integrated this in a competent way. Otherwise we are just justifying crap writing with imagination. This is normal for fanboism, but not rational analysis. In addition - and this will be emphasized - Narrative Coherence is the constant logical flow of a narrative to itself, NOT to our interpretation or headcanon.

 

That is what I was getting at in the big post I don't think you even read. You are making assumptions and trying to argue using fallacious logic. Pushing belief as truth does not work buddy. Truth is provable, belief not so much. That is why I only go with what can be proven.

 

The Reapers are part of the Catalyst and it controls them

And for some reason that appears only to you the citadel having the same traits (100% of it being part of the Catalyst) is somehow not? Because we both know if it did your past few posts would be meaningless and the argument over.

 

 

Yes but how does it works?

Put down a scheme or something like that...

 

 

Mine is very simple: not every signal sent from the citadel to the keepers is always necessarily depending from the detailed, specific will of the catalyst (in fact, automatic signals are perfectly conceivable and not contradicted) (1)

Even better: two specific, detalied signals are not working during the ME1 event. At least two of the "catalyst/citadel <-> keepers voluntary connections/nodes" are broken (Saren is needed to take control over the arms; Sovereing is needed to manually open the mass relay)

 

What, you want me to bring up the citadel infrastructure schema? That is not really going to happen in a detailed was as this was never represented in the material. What I see from you is that you assume every signal DEPENDS on or is the WILL OF the Catalyst, which I have said is NOT THE CASE. Please read my posts!

 

All signals in the citadel are PART OF the catalyst. In the same way the Citadel is PART OF the catalyst. Whom ever initiates is irrelevant. The issue here is that all signals are PART OF and thus it would be able to launch a signal to open the arms (as, again, all signals are part of it). This is logical deduction. I am not re-interpreting (or mis reading). This is what the material is literally telling us.

 

If we want to me more abstract and general we can use this:

The reapers are part of the catalyst

The Catalyst controls the reapers

 

From this we literally see that anything that is part of the catalyst is controlled by the catalyst (unless you have a citation, codex entry, cut scene that shows otherwise - not your interpretation).

 

I am already seeing assumptions in your last bit:

 

in fact, automatic signals are perfectly conceivable and not contradicted)

Prove it, where is this citation from the lore? You asked me to deliver the infrastructure of the citadel but I cannot as that was never detailed, I am only going off of what is proven. Trying to follow the logic you put down (epistemology) so we are both on the same page.

 

 

Even better: two specific, detalied signals are not working during the ME1 event. At least two of the "catalyst/citadel <-> keepers voluntary connections/nodes" are broken (Saren is needed to take control over the arms; Sovereing is needed to manually open the mass relay)

 

What? So you are, again, using the "Arms Didn't Open" to PROVE that the catalyst did not have the ability to open the arms when, in ME3 it is shown operating the arms & platforms.

 

If you want to use ME1 as proof - go for it. Now we operate on the model that the Arms couldn't open in ME1. Now, please show the citation, cut scene ,codex entry that describes or details how the catalyst is operating the citadel in ME3? You may try to divert to "Indoctrinated agents" However, we know there are only two places the arms can be accessed - the Master Control on the Citadel Tower and the Place where Shepard is. TIM was at the latter, do you have a citation showing who was at the former or are we going to assume? Assumption =/= proof.

 

 

(1) and I don't understand why this is impossible to conceive, logically unacceptable.

 

I am having a hard time to conceive why someone who has stated the catalyst is trash and poorly written would spend this much time defending it. Maybe you are trolling, maybe you are playing a devil's advocate, I do no know. I do know, however, that the required information to make the catalyst contradiction go away is NOT represented in the source material and requires headcanon to remove. As you have shown many times over my dear* boy.

 

EDIT (among many): Here is a great write up on intellectually honest tactics in debate. I did read you like to debate online with others and I thought you could use this for future use.

http://johntreed.com...-debate-tactics

 

[Ithurael]

Why do you bother discussing Narrative Coherence with him? He stated earlier that cooking headcanon is his main purpose. He doesn't care about Narrative Coherence at all. He only wants the story to work even if it requires headcanon. Why not leave him to his imagination.

 

Who knows. I try not to state what is in peoples minds. I certainly have my assumptions on his intentions but no proof.

 

But yeah, I was a bit confused when he said the information was already in the material and did not require headcanon, only to launch into headcanon and then defend it with redefinition fallacy, false comparison fallacy, and circular fallacy. Maybe he is just trying to argue, maybe not. Maybe he really is that devoted to the product, idk.

 

At the very least he is civil, pleasant, and quaint. He seems to be trying to do the right thing but it just isn't working.