3581 réponses à ce sujet

[gothpunkboy89]

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.

 

 

Husks are Reaper troops they would need some nominal control of them other wise they don't make very good troops. And yes Saren's control is much different then normal husks.

 

That being said it bend destroyed should not create an energy shock wave that could short out an entire Reaper. A Reaper created to be nearly invulnerable to all damage.

 

There is no implication to the connection. This isn't a set up of someone trying a new diet then getting sick. Were it is possible the new diet had a connection or it could be Jane from accounting inadvertently passing a stomach bug around the office. This is much more guy pulls the trigger of is pistol. The muzzle flashes then the target down range develops a hole.

 

We do know exactly what is going on because EDI pulls the exact same thing in ME 3. If her body were to be destroyed her true self would remain unharmed.

[BloodyMares]

Husks are Reaper troops they would need some nominal control of them other wise they don't make very good troops. And yes Saren's control is much different then normal husks.

I wouldn't call them troops because they behave just like mindless zombies. It doesn't require control, the basic programming (like primal instincts) is enough.

[kal_reegar]

 

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

 

no, you are simply confusing narrative coherence with the vagueness, or the absence of uniqueness in explanations.

 

You believe that if something happen "out of screen", without the detalis being explicited, with a lot of potential, possible explanation, narrative coherence is broken.

I simply disagree

 

 

 

We need some in-game citation, codex entry, something that shows us the writers planned and integrated this in a competent way.   

 

Prove it, where is this citation from the lore?

 

 

 

Truth is provable, belief not so much. That is why I only go with what can be proven.

 

 

 

you have a pre-popper mind-set, a true verificationist

You believe that a theory, in order to be valid/acceptable, need to be proven (with codex entry, lore citations etc)

I believe that any theory is valid/acceptable unitl it is disproven (with codex entry and lore citations)

 

 

 

 

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. 

 

 

nah it's not logical deduction.

The ability of a sentient A to launch, in specific moments, specific kind of signals to a non-sentient B has nothing to do (epistemologically, ontologically, logically etc etc) with he fact the that B is a 100% part of A.

.

It could be completely true, it could be completely false, it could be partially true or partially false, depending on time, space and other circumstances.

 

 

 

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

 

in this case we have a lore citation that expressely disprove this reconstruction, if taken as an absolute.

Sovereing.

So why do you choose to completely ignore Sovereing statement? Why and how do establish an hierarchy between in-game info?

[Ithurael]

You are a tenacious one, incorrect, but tenacious

 

no, you are simply confusing narrative coherence with the vagueness, or the absence of uniqueness in explanations.

 

You believe that if something happen "out of screen", without the detalis being explicited, with a lot of potential, possible explanation, narrative coherence is broken.

I simply disagree

 

 

Narrative coherence is very VERY well described. Here are a few links:

 

 

“Coherence is best defined as the degree to which a story makes sense structurally. Is the story consistent, with sufficient detail, reliable characters, and free of any major surprises? The ability to judge coherence is learned and improves with experience. Individuals determine whether a story has coherence by comparing it with another story that falls along the same lines.”

Griffin, E.A. “A First Look at Communication Theory” 7^th Edition

 

Or this great lesson on the Narrative Paradigm and Narrative Coherence (25 mins in)

 

Or (by Robert McKee- well known screenwriter and teacher)

[Never give the audience/reader a reason to question the truth of your events, nor to doubt the motivations of your characters. ]

 

Or

“Coherence:

Refers to the internal consistency of a narrative

It is the standard of sense making of a applied to a given narrative

It is often measured by organizational and structural elements

 

Based on three types of coherence: Structural Coherence (the flow of the story), material coherence (referring to congruence between one story and other related stories. E.g. how does ME3s narrative compare to previous installments in the trilogy, how well connected is it?), and characterological coherence (a type of coherence referring to the believability of the characters in the story)”

http://www.slideshare.net/xhee27/the-narrative-paradigm-6707957

(slide 16)

 

Or as cited earlier

“The principle of coherence guides the assimilation of various signs and their merging into a larger sign without too many inconsistencies. This principle overlaps to some extent with the logical code: if that code fails, there will be no coherence. The reverse is not the case, however: the logic does not forbid that all characters in a text, for instance, bear the same name, but the principle of coherence would seriously suffer. The principle of coherence is not merely a general semiotic principle, but also, more narrowly, a convention of narratives.”

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=eWhsaJQzquAC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

or here

"Yet another key to writing good plot is coherence. The plot of your story should hang together as one piece, regardless of the number of sub-plots or mini-climactic moments. "

https://www.skotos.net/articles/GoodStorytelling.html

Or here

"In the final portion of your essay on narrative structure, you should describe how effectively the writer controls the narrative elements in the piece. Look for a logical flow of events that are clear to the reader by the end the story. Consider and discuss any false leads the writer might use to take the reader down blind alleys or introduce twists that rely too heavily on irony, coincidence or other improbable circumstances. Effective narrative structure should not make a story predictable, but it should not defy a reader's common sense either."

http://classroom.synonym.com/explain-narrative-structures-writing-1042.html

 

Or here:

“Writers and editors must constantly seek to achieve consistency. Each inconsistency we remove eliminates a barrier between readers and understanding, facilitates communication, and thereby increases the likelihood that our writing will convey the message we intended. Readers learn the conventions we have used early in a manuscript and use that knowledge to facilitate comprehension of subsequent material.”

http://www.intelligentediting.com//resources/five-ways-that-consistency-matters/

 

Or even here:

“Coherence is best defined as the degree to which a story makes sense structurally. Is the story consistent, with sufficient detail, reliable characters, and free of any major surprises? The ability to judge coherence is learned and improves with experience. Individuals determine whether a story has coherence by comparing it with another story that falls along the same lines. For example, a story line which presents the notion that a man loves his wife, depicts him abusing her, contrasts with one in which he is considerate. It does not make sense that a man who loves his wife will abuse her; thus, the narrative in question is not totally consistent or coherent. To Fisher, the ultimate test of narrative coherence is whether we can count on the characters to act in a reliable manner. Because of this, we trust characters to show continuity throughout the thought, movie, and actions. Otherwise, we become suspicious when characters behave uncharacteristically.”

https://books.google.com/books?id=6HxkngEACAAJ&dq

 

That should end that debate. Narrative coherence is very well represented. It has NOTHING to do with vagueness. You can be as abstract as you want, just be sure not to break the logical flow of your work. You can disagree with reality, but your disagreement does not redefine reality.

 

If something happens off screen -and is not documented/represented/shown or explained and that item/action/whatever has a large effect on the plot (eg the catalyst just automatically controlling the citadel because reasons) then yes, the narrative is inconsistent.

 

Even you - who mentioned and tries to follow epistemology should know this. Either that or you are trolling or just arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

 

you have a pre-popper mind-set, a true verificationist

You believe that a theory, in order to be valid/acceptable, need to be proven (with codex entry, lore citations etc)

I believe that any theory is valid/acceptable unitl it is disproven (with codex entry and lore citations)

 

 

Oh? What tactic is this I wonder?

 

 

Stereotyping: debater “proves” his point about a particular person by citing a stereotype that supposedly applies to the group that opponent is a member of. For example, Professor David Romer of Cal did a study that found coaches should go for a first down far more often and kick far less on fourth down; Some coaches laughed and rejected his findings because he is a “professor,” turning the report sideways when reading it, dismissing Romer as “Ivory Tower.” If Romer is wrong, it is because of an error or omission in his facts or logic; not because he is a college professor. Conspicuous by its absence in the coach’s protests is any evidence of errors or omissions in Dr. Romer’s analysis.

 

There is another in there, I wonder if you will find it

 

Now to your point:

 

You believe that a theory, in order to be valid/acceptable, need to be proven (with codex entry, lore citations etc)

I believe that any theory is valid/acceptable unitl it is disproven (with codex entry and lore citations)

 

I believe that there is a difference between belief and fact. You stated that the contradiction was not a contradiction and we did not need to use headcanon to solve it. You then actively used assumptions, redefinition, and headcanon to solve it because that is what you want to do. You assumed coherence to prove coherence, this is a circular fallacy. I have no real issue with people postulating their opinions and thoughts on how they think it should be/could be. My issue is when we get someone postulating their opinions and beliefs as factual and logical - when we clearly see they are not.

 

You can have a belief, but that is native to you (and maybe others that share it), however I do not see your beliefs explicitly represented in the material. Believing a theory/belief can be fact until proven wrong is epistemologically incorrect, factually incorrect, and a bit pretentious bud.

 

And yeah, we have already used lore citations to disprove your notion that the catalyst has no control/influence over the citadel. We did that a number of posts back, you are just trying again and again to redefine things to make it work.

 

 

nah it's not logical deduction.

The ability of a sentient A to launch, in specific moments, specific kind of signals to a non-sentient B has nothing to do (epistemologically, ontologically, logically etc etc) with he fact the that B is a 100% part of A.

.

It could be completely true, it could be completely false, it could be partially true or partially false, depending on time, space and other circumstances.

 

Oh, really? When we see that B (the citadel and the signals therein) are part of A (the Catalyst) and that C (the keepers operating and maintaining the citadel respond only to it is very VERY easy to infer this and then see it proven when we see the citadel opening up, closing, and platforms raising. So yeah. Here is a deductive model:

 

The Citadel is part of the Catalyst

The Signal to Open the Arms comes from the Citadel (do you have any proof from the game that shows otherwise on this?)

The Signal to open the arms is part of the Catalyst.

 

Here is another

The Citadel is part of the Catalyst

Bob the keeper responds to the Citadel

Bob the keeper responds to part of the Catalyst

 

You can ignore, you can re-interpret (and I think you will), but this does not change the logical structure. If I am logically incorrect, please represent the deductive model as it should be used and make sure (if there is any variance) to leverage in-game citation so we know you are not postulating your interpretation.

 

If you want to bring in epistemology, the measure of truth is and can be determined by proof. For example, if a man crosses a bridge we conclude that the bridge is able to support him as this is re-enforced through observation. However, if the man says the the bridge will support him and then it collapses trying to cross it, we concluded he only believed as such and it was not truthful.

 

Applying back to ME3, if we hear the Citadel is part of the Catalyst and then we see it controlling the arms we derive that this is an actual truth, then, this creates a continuity issue. You are constantly trying to bring up a bit of a false premise by saying the Citadel (being 100% of the catalyst) is not affected by the catalyst or influenced by it. Even though in ME3 we see the Arms flower open, close, and platforms are raising up. I have asked for the proof, but you continue to push headcanon and defend with a circular fallacy (using the conclusion as the proof, the arms didn't open because the arms didn't open).

 

And as for what we have seen, it IS completely true that the Citadel is part of the catalyst. Do those signals emanating from the citadel not emanate from the citadel? You are, again, pushing a false premise.

 

How is Signal A =/= Signal B

Signal A = Asari command sends signal to open/close the arms

Signal B = The catalyst sends signal to open/close the arms

 

We can even take it further

 

Signal C: Signal sent to Open/Close Citadel Arms

Signal D: Signal sent to Open/Close Citadel Arms

 

How is Signal C =/= Signal D. They are BOTH part of the catalyst. Your issue is on who initiates it. You have been fighting tooth and nail to show that the catalyst cannot initiate the signal. However, we see in ME3 the arms are opening/closing and platforms are raising with no other context except that the citadel is part of him. Even though automated signals you mentioned are part of the citadel, which is part of him.

 

We both know that you will favor signal A over B, but the issue here is the Signal itself. This signal is operating within the citadel, which is part of the catalyst. And, both are represented in the material. To the former we see this in ME1 when Sovereign attacks, in the latter we see when the citadel flowers open, the citadel closes, or the platforms raise up. Where is the in game evidence disproving Signal B cannot happen or is unable to happen?

 

 

 

in this case we have a lore citation that expressely disprove this reconstruction, if taken as an absolute.

Sovereing.

So why do you choose to completely ignore Sovereing statement? Why and how do establish an hierarchy between in-game info?

 

We do have a statement that is disprove in a LATER installment (thus continuity error). You cannot take two completely contradictory points and consider them both true. The reapers were originally independent, until ME3 when they were now retconned. We could go into a great bit of headcanon about indoctrination/the level of control/etc but this is never really represented. We only know that the catalyst controls them completely.

 

To the point on hierarchy, the easiest way to represent this is via a linear progression.

 

First we learn the reapers are independent

Then we see their individual personalities (Sovereign & Harbinger)

Then we learn they are under the catalyst control

Then we see the catalyst controlling them to stop fighting
 

Here is a great little video exploring the commonalities of a plothole. Hopefully it gives additional context.

 

One point, at a later time, comes AFTER the prior point and thus contradicts it. They cannot both be true at the same time as we see, through cutscenes, that the catalyst - indeed - does control them. In addition, we see from the former head writer of ME1 (and ME2 until he left) that the Catalyst was not even thought up when they made ME1

 

LINK

 

You are trying to - again - re-interpret the material to make it work (via your logical interpretation plan). I can say that you can build a headcanon from this and it will work - for you. But it is not found in the material, thus our continuity errors, plotholes, and break of narrative coherence.

 

If you are interested - I posted it a bit late on the last reply - look into this guide, I think you may enjoy it and it may help you with your arguments in the future.

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

It is a quick read.

 

One of us will run out of steam sooner or later and I just took my caffeine hyped up protein shake 

[kal_reegar]

 

 

That should end that debate. 

 

Not at all

 

“Coherence is best defined as the degree to which a story makes sense structurally. Is the story consistent, with sufficient detail, reliable characters, and free of any major surprises?

And how we decide is the details are sufficient? Arbitrary.

 

 

I admire you for the source you look for, but really, these are at best good advices about how to write a good story and how to keep your readers happy and satisfied.

Mac Walters is not a good writer, I fear

 

But bad writing doesn't mean that the story is inconsitent.

I don't see any explicit contradiction in the Me3 ending.

Contradiction arise only if you choose, in the range of the possible interpretations (and the range is very wide, giving the vagueness), certain interpretations.

And why would you choose one of them? Why, within possible (unlikely as you wish, but still possible), would you deliberatley choose the impossible?

 

 

 

 

Oh? What tactic is this I wonder?

 

Dude, have you got a phd in fallacies and argumentation theory? Fascinating 

No tactic, btw. Verificationism is a legit point of view and a cool philosophy. Simply, it is not the only possible one.

 

 

 

 You stated that the contradiction was not a contradiction and we did not need to use headcanon to solve it. You then actively used assumptions, redefinition, and headcanon to solve it because that is what you want to do. You assumed coherence to prove coherence, this is a circular fallacy. I have no real issue with people postulating their opinions and thoughts on how they think it should be/could be. My issue is when we get someone postulating their opinions and beliefs as factual and logical - when we clearly see they are not.

 

When? How?

I use ALL in game information, and than I put them together in a sensible way. There are many ways to do so, many sound interpretations.

On the other hand, you arbitrary choose which info are valid and which doesn't deserve attention, and than you analyze these informations like they were compartmentalized.

 

It is a legit method, but it is not THE method.

 

We have already proved that there is no inconsistency, unless you want them to be so. Let's take this good definition of non-contradiction principle: "The same thing clearly cannot act or be acted upon in the same part or in relation to the same thing at the same time, in contrary ways"

During ME3 blue ending the catalyst is controlling the citadel (let's assume that he is in full control). During the event of ME1 the catalyst wasn't controlling the citadel.

Are we talking about the same thing? No, we are talking about the catalyst vs the sheparlyst. But let's move on, this point is controversial.

Are we talking about the same time? No, the time in different, the circumstances are completely different. So, no inconsistency here.

 

 

 

 

And yeah, we have already used lore citations to disprove your notion that the catalyst has no control/influence over the citadel. We did that a number of posts back, you are just trying again and again to redefine things to make it work.

 

Again... sending a signal is not necessarly something voluntary.

 

You can use all the deductive models of the world, nothing will change these simple truth.

 

For example: 

The Signal to Open the Arms comes from the Citadel (do you have any proof from the game that shows otherwise on this?)

The "voluntary act" of sending the imput "open the arms" is made by Saren (ME1) and Shepard (ME3, after TIM confrontation). How the citadel transpose this imput into an (automatic) signa to the keepers or directly to the arms is irrelevant.

Is the voluntary act that determines the control over the citadel functions.

And you cannot prove that the catalyst had the capacity to perform such voluntary acts during ME1.

 

And again

The Citadel is part of the Catalyst

Bob the keeper responds to the Citadel

Bob the keeper responds to part of the Catalyst

 

Nothing to do with will. Something responding to part of you has nothing do to with you controlling that something. You keep missing the crucial point.

 

All this debate about the citadel/catalyst sending a signal to the keepers is pointless.

We know about ONE signal, and that signal is "open relay". The keepers doesn't recognize it.

We also know that the keepers respond to the citadel (part of the catalyst). But we have seen that if C respond to B which is part of A, doesn't mean that A can control B and/or C at will.

 

So what?

 

 

 

 

We do have a statement that is disprove in a LATER installment (thus continuity error). You cannot take two completely contradictory points and consider them both true. The reapers were originally independent, until ME3 when they were now retconned. We could go into a great bit of headcanon about indoctrination/the level of control/etc but this is never really represented. We only know that the catalyst controls them completely.

 

To the point on hierarchy, the easiest way to represent this is via a linear progression.

 

First we learn the reapers are independent

Then we see their individual personalities (Sovereign & Harbinger)

Then we learn they are under the catalyst control

Then we see the catalyst controlling them to stop fighting

 

but this is headcanon at its apex

If a general orders his soldier to stop fighting, because the battle is lost (or won) does it mean that soldiers are not indipendent beings?

We see the reapers stop fighiting, yes... because the puppeteers pulled the strings? Or because, through their collective intellinge (now updated with Shep personality) they've reached the conclusion that stop fighting is the best solution? We cannot possibly know.

 

 

yes yes, I know, false comparison

[Ithurael]

*I am removing quote boxes - too many. Your quotes are contained in ================= [# ]  ===============

 

Hope it works.

 

===================================================

 

[#Kal Reeger Said

Not at all

 

“Coherence is best defined as the degree to which a story makes sense structurally. Is the story consistent, with sufficient detail, reliable characters, and free of any major surprises?

And how we decide is the details are sufficient? Arbitrary.

 

 

I admire you for the source you look for, but really, these are at best good advices about how to write a good story and how to keep your readers happy and satisfied.

Mac Walters is not a good writer, I fear]

 

===================================================

 

 

At least you admit Mac Walters is NOT a good writer - which is the cause of this multi paged debate. Continuity issues are a major issue with writing and writing competency.

 

And also, sufficiency of detail is not really a subjective detail when it comes to logical processing, like you mentioned in epistemology. What is true is proven, you have not proven that the catalyst could not open the arms in ME1 (when we clearly see it can operate them in ME3 and has the will to control the citadel when it needs to). You have presented a number of interpretations to try to reason it out mixed with assumption. But nothing solid from the material. Here is an example, if - in ME1 we notice the arms not opening and Saren is needed but in ME3 we see the arms opening/closing where is the citation that shows how/where the catalyst had control over the citadel? Or, what is controlling those arms and platforms?

 

Do you have this citation? Once you do, you will have the proof you need to move your argument from a belief to truth. It is very simple

 

And these are not "best practices". You can try to argue this way but it is a false premise at best. Narrative Coherence is narrative coherence until we adopt a new meaning of narrative coherence. I doubt you are a post-modernist (though it would not surprise me) but I think if you are willing to entertain the notion of epistemology and logic, then you would at least understand and respect standards as they are - sans redefinition. I may be incorrect, as it seems you do not. But hey, anything to try to win an internet argument right?

 

 

===================================================

[#Kal Reeger Said

But bad writing doesn't mean that the story is inconsitent.

I don't see any explicit contradiction in the Me3 ending.

Contradiction arise only if you choose, in the range of the possible interpretations (and the range is very wide, giving the vagueness), certain interpretations.

And why would you choose one of them? Why, within possible (unlikely as you wish, but still possible), would you deliberatley choose the impossible?]

 

===================================================

 

 

Bad writing is a more general term that some like to throw around to shift the debate to subjective areas, lets keep things on track. As many people can still enjoy something that is poorly written. The correct word I have used is competency. And in the terms of narrative coherence, there is no competency. I have shown this via the definition of Narrative Coherence and relating the plot hole created by the catalyst. You have continued to make a false comparison (The citadel being part of it means it cant influence it since I cannot control my body or your newest:

 

 

Something responding to part of you has nothing do to with you controlling that something <snip>

 

Part of me =/= part of AI catalyst here buddy. You cannot compare me or you to the catalyst. We can only compare the Catalyst to the Catalyst. And we only meet the little bugger in ME3.)

 

I have a funny feeling you don't WANT to see any contradiction in the ME3 ending as you have stated prior that if two pieces of information contradict, we need to make them consistent. Either that, or you are just arguing a point to see how far you can get or how angry someone can get. Thankfully, not far on both counts Leveraging assumption, headcanon, and fallacies to back your point up do not a logical argument make my dear boy . I do hope you had a look at the intellectual honesty link I delivered - it will help immensely.

 

Not even sure what you are talking on the "why would you choose this?" Look, I get it is really cool and edgy to push the "they are just hating to hate" point but I don't think this is an argument. I am not choosing to see this contradiction - a contradiction YOU acknowledged and then said we needed to remove. So, the only person here choosing to do an optional task is you buddy.

 

 

===================================================

 

[#Kal Reeger Said:

Dude, have you got a phd in fallacies and argumentation theory? Fascinating  

No tactic, btw. Verificationism is a legit point of view and a cool philosophy. Simply, it is not the only possible one.

 

 

When? How?

I use ALL in game information, and than I put them together in a sensible way. There are many ways to do so, many sound interpretations.

On the other hand, you arbitrary choose which info are valid and which doesn't deserve attention, and than you analyze these informations like they were compartmentalized.

 

It is a legit method, but it is not THE method.

 

We have already proved that there is no inconsistency, unless you want them to be so. Let's take this good definition of non-contradiction principle: "The same thing clearly cannot act or be acted upon in the same part or in relation to the same thing at the same time, in contrary ways"

During ME3 blue ending the catalyst is controlling the citadel (let's assume that he is in full control). During the event of ME1 the catalyst wasn't controlling the citadel.

Are we talking about the same thing? No, we are talking about the catalyst vs the sheparlyst. But let's move on, this point is controversial.

Are we talking about the same time? No, the time in different, the circumstances are completely different. So, no inconsistency here.]

 

===================================================

 

 

Not a PHD, but I am aware enough to know when someone is lying or trying to push their opinion as fact, and don't think I don't sense that condescension. Also, another great tactic that others like to use when defending the ending is prance around in philosophy. Let's keep to objective deduction here shall we? Trying to divert the discussion into potentially subjective arenas can never a factual conversation make. Epistemology is a great measure of truth, but the doctrines it uses are doctrines, the key aspect of Truth vs Belief is the key value I want to get across here (and it seems you do to although maybe to a lesser extent).

 

And I am not talking about a doctrine of epistemology, I am just asking FOR actual proof from the material - not your interpretation of it. You consistently dodge the question whenever I do and present your interpretation or attempt to leverage the redefinition fallacy (please review my prior posts when I noted this behavior). If you cannot represent the proof in the material, you have no argument, the material is thus inconsistent. You may not agree, but hey, life isn't fair. It comes down to burden of proof, if you cannot source the material to support your argument but instead continue to try to focus on your interpretation, you have no argument.

 

 

When? How?

I use ALL in game information, and than I put them together in a sensible way. There are many ways to do so, many sound interpretations.

On the other hand, you arbitrary choose which info are valid and which doesn't deserve attention, and than you analyze these informations like they were compartmentalized.

 

First you said there would be no headcanon required. Headcanon as we know is player interpretation that may not be completely validated by the lore. Then you said that you were using your interpretation to remove the contradictory elements in order to make it work and then backed it up with assumption and fallacies (thus removing the logical bounds). Next you launched into ones interpretation is just as good as fact by a certain point of view so long as it isn't contradicted. And now we are trying to go back to the logical piecing of information but still being contradicted by the material presented as well as leveraging a few fallacies & assumptions. If you want more information, please re-read your posts. So far, you have been contradicted by even your own methodology AND the lore.

 

And I do like how you list the non-contradiction principle. It is quite literally what I have been saying. You cannot have statement A and statement B in direct contradiction of each other at the same time. One supersedes the other, because the latter retconned the former. I get this happens in developments, but at least a writer could try to keep to their continuity.

 

Now, let us look at your reasoning.

 

During ME3 blue ending the catalyst is controlling the citadel (let's assume that he is in full control). During the event of ME1 the catalyst wasn't controlling the citadel.

Are we talking about the same thing? No, we are talking about the catalyst vs the sheparlyst. But let's move on, this point is controversial.

Are we talking about the same time? No, the time in different, the circumstances are completely different. So, no inconsistency here.

 

It is NOT just the blue ending big boy. It is post anderson death we see the platform rising, the arms flower open, and post catalyst exposition the choice platforms rise. A bit more than Just the blue ending. But even looking at your logic here...

 

 

Are we talking about the same thing? No, we are talking about the catalyst vs the sheparlyst. But let's move on, this point is controversial.

Where is it shown that the Catalyst has less abilities than the shepalyst? I can see how they may have different objectives but the abilities are never verified and in fact it is confirmed that shep is going to control the reapers when he takes control. You are just assuming based on nothing here. This point is a point that you may not like but it shows the catalyst can operate the arms. Do we have a citation from the material that shows the blue ending gives the catalyst these new arm-controlling powers? If so, what was controlling the arms up to this point? Is there a citation for it? All, in all, the catalyst abilities == shepalyst abilities from what we have seen.

 

Catalyst Controls Reapers, Shepalyst controls reapers

Catalyst moving Citadel Arms, Shepalyst moving citadel arms

 

And BOTH of those segments (Reapers & Citadel) make up 100% of the Catalyst! Amazing!! And the focus is on abilities, NOT objectives. The objectives of shepalyst and catalyst are different, we have no information that the abilities would change (from the cut scenes it appears not).

 

 

Are we talking about the same time? No, the time in different, the circumstances are completely different. So, no inconsistency here.

 

What? The time could be 1 billion in the future, if there is no mention, link, etc to represent how the catalyst got its ability to open/close the arms then it is contrived as it does not naturally arise from the story. Come on! You are better than that defense! Besides, with that argument you automatically seemed to have assumed it CAN operate the arms which is what you have been arguing against for the past few posts.

 

Silly Rabbit

 

===================================================

[#Kal Reeger Said:

Again... sending a signal is not necessarly something voluntary.

 

You can use all the deductive models of the world, nothing will change these simple truth.

 

For example: 

The Signal to Open the Arms comes from the Citadel (do you have any proof from the game that shows otherwise on this?)

The "voluntary act" of sending the imput "open the arms" is made by Saren (ME1) and Shepard (ME3, after TIM confrontation). How the citadel transpose this imput into an (automatic) signa to the keepers or directly to the arms is irrelevant.

Is the voluntary act that determines the control over the citadel functions.

And you cannot prove that the catalyst had the capacity to perform such voluntary acts during ME1.

 

And again

The Citadel is part of the Catalyst

Bob the keeper responds to the Citadel

Bob the keeper responds to part of the Catalyst

 

Nothing to do with will. Something responding to part of you has nothing do to with you controlling that something. You keep missing the crucial point.

 

All this debate about the citadel/catalyst sending a signal to the keepers is pointless.

We know about ONE signal, and that signal is "open relay". The keepers doesn't recognize it.

We also know that the keepers respond to the citadel (part of the catalyst). But we have seen that if C respond to B which is part of A, doesn't mean that A can control B and/or C at will.

 

So what?]

=============================================

 

 

This part is what I am a bit worried about here:

 

 

And you cannot prove that the catalyst had the capacity to perform such voluntary acts during ME1.

 

Really? Because I can show you that the catalyst WILL engage personally if it cannot make its solution happen. And, in ME1 it had no other solution to enact except for the harvest. Here is the information in case you missed it:

 

Now, let’s look at the issue:

 

Catalyst powers over the citadel

-Lifts Shepard up on the platform

 

 

Nothing to do with will. Something responding to part of you has nothing do to with you controlling that something

Very applicable to the will of the catalyst indeed. So it cannot control the citadel operations/functions. But somehow it needed to get shepard to it to make the new solutions happen. And it did so...how? Did it tell the keepers? If it did we see an issue with ME1. If he did it himself, we see an issue with ME1. Unless you will try to postulate that he is ONLY capable of raising this one platform up and down (and the decision platforms), which doesn't really make much logical sense in context.

CITE

 

-Closes the arms/opens the arms

CITE

 

Catalyst interfering when it can’t enact a solution

-The Crucible provided new solutions to the catalyst, but he could not make them happen. Thus he intervened directly to allow shepard to do so

-“the Crucible changed me…created new possibilities, but I can’t make them happen”

CITE

 

Catalyst state of mind (prior to crucible docking)

-“The only certainty is its intention, Galactic Annihilation”

CITE

 

-“But you killed the rest."

"We helped them ascend, storing them in reaper form”

CITE

 

Keepers responding to only the catalyst

“The keepers are controlled by the citadel”

CITE

 

“They [the keepers] evolved so that they only respond to the signals emitted by the citadel itself”

CITE

 

 

Relationship of the catalyst to the citadel

“The citadel, it’s my home. The citadel is part of me”

CITE

 

So, looking over that plethora of citations we see the following in ME3

The Catalyst is operating the arms

The Catalyst could not enact the new solution so it brought shepard to do so

 

In ME1 we know the following:

There was no other solution except the harvest

(from our knowledge of ME3) the catalyst operates the arms

(from our knowledge of ME3) the catalyst will intervene if it cannot make the solution happen

 

So yeah bud. This is a textbook continuity issue. Did you review that video on the teacher describing narrative coherence (with the funny hat)? That one gives more in-depth models and examples.

 

You see, continuity applies to all installments, a continuity issue is when one installment (usually a later installment) contradicts a prior installment. Here is a bit more information on Continuity and continuity errors.

 

So, looking at the material, from ME3 we can see a continuity issue. Something is operating these arms and it apparently could have just done that rather than let Sovereign get Saren. Basically, if you can prove it can do these actions in ME3 and have no ability to show it could not NOT have these abilities in ME1, the issue is the writing - not  the reader.

 

 

Nothing to do with will. Something responding to part of you has nothing do to with you controlling that something. You keep missing the crucial point.

 

All this debate about the citadel/catalyst sending a signal to the keepers is pointless.

We know about ONE signal, and that signal is "open relay". The keepers doesn't recognize it.

We also know that the keepers respond to the citadel (part of the catalyst). But we have seen that if C respond to B which is part of A, doesn't mean that A can control B and/or C at will.

 

Here is where I think you are starting to realize your point is being beaten. Anytime someone tries to end discussing the point, it usually means that point has proven them incorrect (at least in my experience). So, lets take a look. We know about the signal Sovereign sent, but the command/signal to open/close the arms is directed to the citadel. In the case of the former it was removed from the keepers being able to receive it. In the case of the latter the keepers can obviously still receive it.

 

AND, we see the Catalyst does actually get involved when it cannot enact its solution - otherwise, shepard would still be bleeding out. So, riddle me this batman, how can the catalyst have the will/intention to raise shepards platform, the choice platforms, and flower out the citadel in ME3 when it has new choices but not just open the arms in ME1 or send a command to the keepers to open the arms in ME1? I do hope we have an in game citation.

 

Your last part is utterly defeated by the fact that the catalyst can raise shepard up to meet him bud. We see it has intention, we see it has control, the last segment of land you have to stand on is the amount of control it has which - looking at the lore - is evaporating since we logically see that it has control over the reapers (part of it) and we see it operating aspects of the citadel (also part of it). Again, I still have a funny feeling you are believing an AI is the same thing as a human. Just compare the catalyst to the catalyst, that is the most effective approach.

 

 

So what?

HA!

 

"So what? This is a universal, all-purpose put down. It implies that the evidence you just submitted was irrelevant. It tries to put you on the defensive by demanding you prove the relevance of what you just said. It contains no facts or logic, just a conclusory accusation."
 

=============================================

[#Kal Reeger Said:

but this is headcanon at its apex 

If a general orders his soldier to stop fighting, because the battle is lost (or won) does it mean that soldiers are not indipendent beings?

We see the reapers stop fighiting, yes... because the puppeteers pulled the strings? Or because, through their collective intellinge (now updated with Shep personality) they've reached the conclusion that stop fighting is the best solution? We cannot possibly know.

 

 

yes yes, I know, false comparison]

=============================================

 

 

Thank you for representing the false comparison. My point still stands.

 

Reapers =/= organics

 

And, in the context of continuity. You cannot be independent (free from control) and controlled/part of a hivemind at the same time. Some like to say Soveriegn was lying/bravado w/e. While we have no information available of a reaper outright lying, they can lie by omission but that is a bit different altogether. In the end, what made the reapers stop fighting was the catalyst - NOT the reapers.

 

One, clearly supersedes the other which does contradict the previous installment. And, while I am aware this is an attempt to divert the subject it still does show that the catalyst does control that which is a part of it. If it can do it for one part, where is the information showing it cannot for the other part? Especially when we see the citadel just operating on its own accord.

 

Again KR, you can headcanon what you want to resolve the issue, point in fact you already have! And I respect that. Headcanon is intrinsic to each person. I am not here to debate your headcanon or preferred interpretation. I am only look at the material and how it interacts with the rest of the material. I have said many times that headcanon is the BEST way to deal with the catalyst issues. However, do not be THAT guy and profess your opinion/interpretation as actually represented in the lore.

 

Still tonnes of steam! HOO-HAA!!! And if I do not respond tonight (it is 9PM where I am) I shall see you in the morning my forum brother!

[kal_reegar]

 

Here is an example, if - in ME1 we notice the arms not opening and Saren is needed but in ME3 we see the arms opening/closing where is the citation that shows how/where the catalyst had control over the citadel? Or, what is controlling those arms and platforms?

 

Do you have this citation? Once you do, you will have the proof you need to move your argument from a belief to truth. It is very simple

 

I've never said that my argument are the truth

I've always said that their were mere interpretations. I simply believe that we have enough details to distinguish between consistent interpretation (see also hacking, catalyst asleep etc.) and inconsistent interpretation (indoctrination theory etc.).

 

 

I have a funny feeling you don't WANT to see any contradiction in the ME3 ending as you have stated prior that if two pieces of information contradict, we need to make them consistent. Either that, or you are just arguing a point to see how far you can get or how angry someone can get. Thankfully, not far on both counts

 

because the two pieces of info come from two different sources, two different point of view. If the codex was contradictory, it would simply be inconsistent.

But in these case you can easily reconcile them.

It's like the synthtetic-organic conflit: you witness a lot of conflict, and some people tells you that this conflict is inevitable, you better kill them all etc. Others believe in pacific coexistence, and  Shepard can solve some problems on his own.

It's up to you to determine (pure interpretation) to what extent peace between organics and synthtetics is possible. Mix the (contradictory) info you have, from different point of views.

 

 

And I am not talking about a doctrine of epistemology, I am just asking FOR actual proof from the material - not your interpretation of it. You consistently dodge the question whenever I do and present your interpretation or attempt to leverage the redefinition fallacy (please review my prior posts when I noted this behavior). If you cannot represent the proof in the material, you have no argument, the material is thus inconsistent. You may not agree, but hey, life isn't fair. It comes down to burden of proof, if you cannot source the material to support your argument but instead continue to try to focus on your interpretation, you have no argument

 

And I can answer that the burden of falsification is up t you, and we'll continue to argue until the end of times

 

I'm in a stronger position, because I accept multiple answers and interpretations, as long as they are not expressly contradicted and falsified. I'm like an agnostic (or a gnostic).

Your position is weaker, because you keep demanding nonexistent material in order to prove something that cannot be proven nor disproven (you're like an hardcore atheist)

 

 

 

What? The time could be 1 billion in the future, if there is no mention, link, etc to represent how the catalyst got its ability to open/close the arms then it is contrived as it does not naturally arise from the story. Come on! You are better than that defense! Besides, with that argument you automatically seemed to have assumed it CAN operate the arms which is what you have been arguing against for the past few posts.

 

Of course it can operate the arms.... in the blue ending, or if you prefer, during ME3 ending.

When you infer that the catalyst should have the same ability during the event of ME1, you are head-canoning . Nothing in ME1 shows that the catalyst is able to control the arms of anything else on the citadel at will. On the contrary, the plot strongly suggest othewise.

 

 

So, looking at the material, from ME3 we can see a continuity issue. Something is operating these arms and it apparently could have just done that rather than let Sovereign get Saren. Basically, if you can prove it can do these actions in ME3 and have no ability to show it could not NOT have these abilities in ME1, the issue is the writing - not  the reader.

 

Nope. See above.

ME1 time and circumstances =/= ME3 time and circumstances.

During ME1 the catalyst (for whatever reason) has no voluntary control over the arms.

During ME3 ending the catalyst ha control over the arms (that control is easily over-written by Shepard, btw... when he open the arms and and the crucibile docks).

No inconsistency here. The time is different.

 

 

You need to visualize things, imo. You're a little too fond of deductive logic (I whistle; the locomotive whistles; I'm a locomotive).

 

Imagine that you are the catalyst. A sentient, self-aware emergence, a conscious, alive intelligence.

Imagine that your body (your organs and vital functions) is the citadel (non-sentient material, 100% part of you)

Imagine that all the biological components (proteins, enzymes, Dna/Rna, chimical components etc), essential for the maintenance of your organs and the activation/inibition of the majority of your essential functions,  are the keepers (they respond to your organs, your apparatuses, and thus to you as a whole).

Now, you and your body are sending, constantly, a huge amount of imputs, signals and information data. Some of them are automatic, a sort of background noise, some of them are voluntary, some of them are "inherent", some of them depends from external circumstances and imputs. There is a huge variety. Some reactions are triggered automatically, some of them are triggered "at will" by you, some of them can be triggered by other persons or external events.

Imagine that you decide that right now it would be a good thing to spit. You just need to voluntarily activate that particular functions of your body. You send the proper signal to your glands, which will re-direct the signal to the proper salivatory agents. But, surprise: some mad alien scientists messed with the nerve impulse that activate your salivary glands .Your imput is not recognized by the chemical components that regulate your salivation. You cannot spit. And messing with nervous system is something very dangerous. Perhaps some other functions have been removed from your voluntary control. Perhaps, you cannot even chew!

So you are partially and temporally (nothing irreversible, don't fear)  incapacitated: but your body and organs are stil 100% part of you, you biological components are still responding to them, the you as a whole (mind+body) are still sending signals to the components.

 

 

False comparison, of course, but still the organics mind+body represent the only example of a sentient, complex life form we have  direct experience of.

N.B. I'm not saying that this represent how TRULY the citadel-catalyst-keepers interaction works. But it is a working possibility. Enough to exclude narrative inconsistency (at least, from a falsificationist point of view)

 

 

AND, we see the Catalyst does actually get involved when it cannot enact its solution - otherwise, shepard would still be bleeding out. So, riddle me this batman, how can the catalyst have the will/intention to raise shepards platform, the choice platforms, and flower out the citadel in ME3 when it has new choices but not just open the arms in ME1 or send a command to the keepers to open the arms in ME1? I do hope we have an in game citation.

 

Your last part is utterly defeated by the fact that the catalyst can raise shepard up to meet him bud. We see it has intention, we see it has control, the last segment of land you have to stand on is the amount of control it has which - looking at the lore - is evaporating since we logically see that it has control over the reapers (part of it) and we see it operating aspects of the citadel (also part of it). Again, I still have a funny feeling you are believing an AI is the same thing as a human. Just compare the catalyst to the catalyst, that is the most effective approach.

 

a very effective tautological approach

 

Even if we admit  that during ME3 ending the catalyst is fully awake and in full voluntary control of all the citadel functions (we see he can rise elevators, move platforms, open/close arms. etc), for the same reason we must conclude that during ME1 the catalyst is not awake and/or he is not in full voluntary control of the citadel functions (Saren and Shepard intervention is required in order to operated elevators, platforms, and arms).

 

 

 

 

Btw, you reeeeally write a lot

Are you english mother tongue or bilingual? Because if you're not, your just became on of my greatest heroes...

[BloodyMares]

You two talk about different things, why even argue? Both of you realize that Catalyst is a retcon. But one argues that we need to stick all the pieces of the puzzle together and draw the missing pieces so it resembles a singluar picture, the other one argues that some pieces just don't fit together. The truth remains: you can't solve a puzzle with missing pieces unless you fill them with your imagination. It's simply a matter of preference.

Oh, and Kal, burden of proof always lies on the one in minority. That's why the fact that Earth is not flat was proven with science even though it's true.

[dorktainian]

there's a reason why the internet labelled ME3's ending 'the worst ending in the history of storytelling' (thanks smudboy).

 

It really is.

[TurianSpectre]

there's a reason why the internet labelled ME3's ending 'the worst ending in the history of storytelling' (thanks smudboy).

 

It really is.

Again... are people not allowed to have opinions or are we condemning people who have different opinions to the majority?

[BloodyMares]

Again... are people not allowed to have opinions or are we condemning people who have different opinions to the majority?

Opinions don't matter.

[rossler]

I think some people here don't like anyone with differing opinions. To them, the ending was bad and that's the truth. If you don't hate the ending, you're going to be in for a rough ride. 

[Natureguy85]

Again... are people not allowed to have opinions or are we condemning people who have different opinions to the majority?

We are not discussing matters of opinion. Your subjective enjoyment of the ending is your opinion and that's fine. We are discussing the quality, or lack there of, of the writing. The writing of the ending of Mass Effect 3 is objectively terrible.

There was no condemnation in dorktanian's post, or at least only of the writing, not any person. I've only mocked those who defend it only to try and and smarter than those who didn't like it.

I think some people here don't like anyone with differing opinions. To them, the ending was bad and that's the truth. If you don't hate the ending, you're going to be in for a rough ride.

This from one of the guys who calls those he disagrees with morons who need everything explained to them.

[Natureguy85]

You two talk about different things, why even argue? Both of you realize that Catalyst is a retcon. But one argues that we need to stick all the pieces of the puzzle together and draw the missing pieces so it resembles a singluar picture, the other one argues that some pieces just don't fit together. The truth remains: you can't solve a puzzle with missing pieces unless you fill them with your imagination. It's simply a matter of preference.

Oh, and Kal, burden of proof always lies on the one in minority. That's why the fact that Earth is not flat was proven with science even though it's true.

Yeah, i had the same realization. Kal will make up whatever he needs to, no matter how silly, to fix the broken narrative. He's only interested in what is possible, not what is plausible or sensible. And my problems with him were his claims that his mere possibilities were reasonable or sensible, which they often are not.

I would disagree slightly on the burden of proof. In your example, it had more to do with the idea of being new rather than it being a minority opinion. The issue with Kal is that all he wants is what is
possible and not what is likely. that's profoundly unsatisfying for someone like me, you, or Ithurael. Kal's mistake was not realizing that this thread is the wrong place for that exercise.

The point is that he is doing something fundamentally different than the rest of us so continued discussion is pointless.

[Ithurael]

I've never said that my argument are the truth

I've always said that their were mere interpretations. I simply believe that we have enough details to distinguish between consistent interpretation (see also hacking, catalyst asleep etc.) and inconsistent interpretation (indoctrination theory etc.).

 

Interpretation of reality =/= truth. And the lore, from what we have seen, has shown this to be inconsistent. If you accept evidence that is not in the material (and is more an assumption of the material) and then use proof like (the catalyst did not control the arms because the arms did not open) you are assuming the conclusion and presenting a circular fallacy. That is (one of) my main objection to your points. We see it controls the arms (something you acknowledge it can do), we see the keepers respond to it (as the citadel is part of it), and we see that it will intentionally intervene when necessary.

 

Now, in reference to ME1, we have no information to show how the catalyst has control in ME3 but has no control in ME1. To believe that a lack of information == logical proof is a bit silly and can even be in some cases fallacious (argument from ignorance).

 

By saying "The bridge will support me" without crossing the bridge to prove it, you are postulating a belief. When I say, "the catalyst can control the arms and there is no reason it could not open them in ME1" This is a fact we (and you) have accepted. Your next attempt was to say time was the answer...time does not really come into play here buddy, nor does comparing to a human body - I am sorry. I do not make excuses for contrivances simply on the basis of time. And yes, do not think I am not aware you are trying to shift the discussion to ME1 (when the catalyst did not even exit) as the proof.

 

If we both agree now that the catalyst can operate the arms, where is the proof that it could NOT do this in ME1? A lack of proof =/= fact. When we have enough information to see that the catalyst controls the arms in a later installment but somehow it did not in a prior installment (with no information or context as to why), we have a continuity error. You throwing excuses like time, human body, etc are not logical substitutes. They may allow the narrative to work for you, but it does not work all in all.

 

 

because the two pieces of info come from two different sources, two different point of view. If the codex was contradictory, it would simply be inconsistent.

But in these case you can easily reconcile them.

It's like the synthtetic-organic conflit: you witness a lot of conflict, and some people tells you that this conflict is inevitable, you better kill them all etc. Others believe in pacific coexistence, and  Shepard can solve some problems on his own.

It's up to you to determine (pure interpretation) to what extent peace between organics and synthtetics is possible. Mix the (contradictory) info you have, from different point of views.

 

What? You are just redefining now. The two pieces are taken as one continuity. While I agree they are both meant as stand alone games, the story was meant to be taken as a whole. Here is an example of two different pieces (Halo & Mass Effect), one should not really be compared against the other. Also, why is it JUST the codex that is the absolute standard? Narrative coherence is the material's logical consistency relative to itself. I am sure you can create a view that may seem logical to you, but is it logical to the material (eg are you using the material or just redefining? do you have all the necessary citations or are you just assuming or headcanoning).

 

The synth/org conflict is not the best to present as a counter point here bud.You are trying now - it seems desperately - to show that your headcanon can be taken as logical fact. Remember, truth is proven belief does not have to be. If you want to show truth, you need to prove it. If you want to postulate belief go for it (but it wont really be true until it is proven). I have seen you multiple interpretations and while they may make sense to you, some are often contradicted by the lore or not really provable. Who in the right mind would allow a belief to be accepted as true?

 

 

And I can answer that the burden of falsification is up t you, and we'll continue to argue until the end of times

 

I'm in a stronger position, because I accept multiple answers and interpretations, as long as they are not expressly contradicted and falsified. I'm like an agnostic (or a gnostic).

Your position is weaker, because you keep demanding nonexistent material in order to prove something that cannot be proven nor disproven (you're like an hardcore atheist)

 

 

Of course it can operate the arms.... in the blue ending, or if you prefer, during ME3 ending.

When you infer that the catalyst should have the same ability during the event of ME1, you are head-canoning . Nothing in ME1 shows that the catalyst is able to control the arms of anything else on the citadel at will. On the contrary, the plot strongly suggest othewise.

 

I have already shown the catalyst can control the citadel arms (which you now acknowledge). The continuity issue comes from the fact that we have no information to show why it could not operate those arms in ME1 (no information at all). Simply using the argument "The catalyst didn't open the arms because the arms didn't open" is assuming the conclusion and a bit of a circular fallacy. We both know you are smarter than that my dear boy. The sad truth is the catalyst did not exist in ME1 (something I think you are ignoring but w/e). The continuity error is The Catalyst can operate the arms in ME3, and there is no information present to show why it could not do the same in ME1. And, again, it is not headcanon buddy. We see it is operating the arms in ME3 and we have NO OTHER INFORMATION to suggest it could not at any other point in time. Please stop using a circular argument, it is not helping you.

 

For example, if I say "All Fizzbocks are blue" and then you see a blue Fizzbock (and never see another kind of Fizzbock), it is valid that all Fizzbocks are blue unless counter information arises. There is NO COUNTER INFORMATION to show that the catalyst could not control the citadel at any other time throughout ME1.

 

And you are not in a stronger position, when measuring truth you are just taking as many interpretations as you can and - if they make sense to you - then they are logically true. However, this is in no way the case. A narrative does not become coherent because of what is in the reader's imagination. Nor does something become a fact simply because it makes sense to the one person at that point in time. Thus, again, we have the information we need to show that the catalyst is operating the arms (both before the blue ending) and after the blue ending. And then we have no information as to why it did not open the arms in ME1, when we clearly know it will take action when it cannot make the solution happen. In the end, truth is truth. You can have your own opinions, but not your own facts.
 

 

What I am presenting is a continuity error, there is a blank that cannot be filled (unless you have the in-game citation) representing a major contradiction between installments. This blank is what we need to solve the contradiction from ME3 to ME1. However, it is NOT there. My point is made and continuity error is represented. You can fill that in with as many player interpretations and opinions as you want, but the basis of narrative coherence is very set.

 

 

I

Nope. See above.

ME1 time and circumstances =/= ME3 time and circumstances.

During ME1 the catalyst (for whatever reason) has no voluntary control over the arms.

During ME3 ending the catalyst ha control over the arms (that control is easily over-written by Shepard, btw... when he open the arms and and the crucibile docks).

No inconsistency here. The time is different.

 

 

You need to visualize things, imo. You're a little too fond of deductive logic (I whistle; the locomotive whistles; I'm a locomotive).

 

Imagine that you are the catalyst. A sentient, self-aware emergence, a conscious, alive intelligence.

Imagine that your body (your organs and vital functions) is the citadel (non-sentient material, 100% part of you)

Imagine that all the biological components (proteins, enzymes, Dna/Rna, chimical components etc), essential for the maintenance of your organs and the activation/inibition of the majority of your essential functions,  are the keepers (they respond to your organs, your apparatuses, and thus to you as a whole).

Now, you and your body are sending, constantly, a huge amount of imputs, signals and information data. Some of them are automatic, a sort of background noise, some of them are voluntary, some of them are "inherent", some of them depends from external circumstances and imputs. There is a huge variety. Some reactions are triggered automatically, some of them are triggered "at will" by you, some of them can be triggered by other persons or external events.

Imagine that you decide that right now it would be a good thing to spit. You just need to voluntarily activate that particular functions of your body. You send the proper signal to your glands, which will re-direct the signal to the proper salivatory agents. But, surprise: some mad alien scientists messed with the nerve impulse that activate your salivary glands .Your imput is not recognized by the chemical components that regulate your salivation. You cannot spit. And messing with nervous system is something very dangerous. Perhaps some other functions have been removed from your voluntary control. Perhaps, you cannot even chew!

So you are partially and temporally (nothing irreversible, don't fear)  incapacitated: but your body and organs are stil 100% part of you, you biological components are still responding to them, the you as a whole (mind+body) are still sending signals to the components.

 

 

False comparison, of course, but still the organics mind+body represent the only example of a sentient, complex life form we have  direct experience of.

N.B. I'm not saying that this represent how TRULY the citadel-catalyst-keepers interaction works. But it is a working possibility. Enough to exclude narrative inconsistency (at least, from a falsificationist point of view)

====================

"ME1 time and circumstances =/= ME3 time and circumstances."

===================

 

The time argument is pointless. We see in ME3 it controls the citadel and we have NO information to give us any context that this has changed - that is why we have a continuity error. You are just inventing reasons on this argument. You accept the catalyst can control/operate the citadel in ME3, however we have no information how it got that control/operation.

 

Think of it this way. If, in one scene you see shep shooting reaper soldiers and about to die, then in the next he is welding the sword of a thousand truths which gives him invulnerability we have a bit of an issue. How did he get the sword? Where? When? This comes back to Narrative Coherence. If a writer cannot fully pay attention to their continuity, there will be errors and thus coherence is broken and the illusion shattered. Now, if I wanted to 'solve' the issue of shepard getting the sword, I could just say it was a difference in time between scenes A and B - obviously. Because in Scene A he doesn't have the sword and in scene B he does have the sword. Scene B comes after A so thus it makes sense to me that he would have the sword.

 

You can see where the logic in this falls apart, and it does so for your example.

 

=========================

During ME1 the catalyst (for whatever reason) has no voluntary control over the arms.

=========================

 

And I am sure you have a source on this? From what we see in ME3 it does have voluntary control. We know only the following in ME1:

 

Sovereign needed Saren to get into the citadel to open the arms and allow him to manually open the Citadel relay.

 

Note here, there is no mention of the Catalyst. However, in ME3 we see there is a Catalyst and apparently he can operate the Citadel. So, were is the need for Saren? You are, again, postulating the argument "The proof he could not open the arms is that the arms did not open". Assuming the conclusion as the argument thy name is circular fallacy.

 

===============================

During ME3 ending the catalyst ha control over the arms (that control is easily over-written by Shepard, btw... when he open the arms and and the crucibile docks).

No inconsistency here. The time is different.

===============================

 

The catalyst does have control over the arms and is seen opening the arms (flower style) and raising the platform after the crucible docks and anderson is dead. Shepard was passed out and did not cause the arms to flower out nor did he enable that one platform to rise up. In addition, shepard was dead and shepalyst was in charge in the blue ending. So yeah, this 'time' argument is not working here man. What is time to a race of immortal machine gods anyway? I have a funny feeling you are projecting your personal beliefs onto this.

 

 

===============================

You need to visualize things, imo. You're a little too fond of deductive logic (I whistle; the locomotive whistles; I'm a locomotive).

===============================

 

That was not a deductive statement but nice try. trains don't really whistle as a whistle is something a train cannot do, see definition

 

"a clear, high-pitched sound made by forcing breath through a small hole between partly closed lips, or between one's teeth."

https://www.google.c...=utf-8&oe=utf-8

 

Now you could be referring to what was call the Train Whistle or steam whistle on trains (renamed from the steam trumpet). Looking at the mechanics of what is a whistle and the mechanics of the train whistle, we see they are different. Deductive reasoning only really works when ALL PREMISES ARE TRUE! Trains do NOT whistle, we call the mechanical device the whistle and/or steam trumpet.

 

Off topic on that one.

 

And I have a funny feeling you are going to try to compare a person to an AI again, and yes you did.

 

 

False comparison, of course, but still the organics mind+body represent the only example of a sentient, complex life form we have  direct experience of.

N.B. I'm not saying that this represent how TRULY the citadel-catalyst-keepers interaction works. But it is a working possibility. Enough to exclude narrative inconsistency (at least, from a falsificationist point of view)

 

I am glad you are at least acknowledging this. However, it would be a good point to not compare an organic body to an AI. The closest comparison I can see is EDI/Normandy and Catalyst. And even that still does not come close as they are two very different entities. While we can use our body to try to better understand AI and how it could interact (we do this for cognitive sciences and even machine learning). Now, you CAN use this for your own personal headcanon, but there would be no logic behind it nor any provable points (thus we have a belief). And that is fine. The sad and honest truth is the catalyst is the closest thing we can look at for the catalyst. And the catalyst controls the reapers absolutely (and they are a part of it and embodying their collective consciousness) and it has operational influence and control over the citadel (as it is a part of it).

 

If you want to adopt anything for your suspension of disbelief - go for it. Anything that helps you enjoy the game is always good. However, the information the narrative provides and the universe it comes from show a sizeable issue regarding ME1 and ME3 in the form of the catalyst and its abilities. Since we have no information to show that the catalyst could not operate the arms, it is taken that the catalyst has had control over the citadel the entire time. Maybe he just didn't like so

a very effective tautological approach

 

Even if we admit  that during ME3 ending the catalyst is fully awake and in full voluntary control of all the citadel functions (we see he can rise elevators, move platforms, open/close arms. etc), for the same reason we must conclude that during ME1 the catalyst is not awake and/or he is not in full voluntary control of the citadel functions (Saren and Shepard intervention is required in order to operated elevators, platforms, and arms).

 

I am not sure it falls under tautology, I am taking the information directly from the lore.

We see shepard rising up (i gave a link for this)

We see the catalyst say the citadel is part of it (I gave a link for this)

We see the catalyst needed shepard to enact the new solution (I gave a link for this)

 - we derive that the catalyst will intervene directly if it cannot make its solution work as there is no logical evidence to the contrary

 

So, where do you seem me using different phrases or terms to construct the same argument and how is it obscuring any lack of information? Your only counter is using outdated information as proof. We have no information as to WHY it could not open the arms. While I do know and see that the arms did not open, we see that it can operate the arms and it does take action when it cannot enact its solutions. So, again, I think you may need to look at your arguments here. It is like trying to use the contradiction as proof there is no contradiction.

 

As you said earlier about the non-contradiction principle is that two contradictory statements cannot BOTH be true. You seem to take ME1 as absolute truth and then ME3 as absolute truth, then filling in the reset with headcanon to remove contradiction.

 

And we did admit the catalyst has voluntary control over the citadel - thank you. It is NOT the same reason here bud, you are (as I have said before) using conclusion as proof. If your conclusion is that "He cannot open the arms" and your proof is that the arms did not open in ME1, which is then openly contradicted in ME3 with no further context. You are assuming the conclusion, arguing in circles. You can adopt this as headcanon sure, but it is not true. In addition, we have to take later installments over previous (especially in concerns to lore availability).

 

The real proof we see as to why the catalyst did NOT open the arms in ME1 was found here:

"JebusMcSmoothy BWipperf The Catalyst didn't exist until I after I left the #MassEffect franchise, so I can't really say what it would do."

 

https://twitter.com/...046276831772674

 

Ta-Da! Continuity error expressed, validated, and confirmed! No reason you can't use headcanon to fill anything in to make the work make sense to you however, as we know, there is a difference between belief and truth. We are all entitled to our opinions, but we do not get our own facts.

 

 

Btw, you reeeeally write a lot

Are you english mother tongue or bilingual? Because if you're not, your just became on of my greatest heroes...

 

Yes, I have an issue with abstraction. I am either very abstract or very detailed - no middle ground it sucks and it actually impacts my job as most get overwhelmed or ignore 90% of what I present. Though, to be fair, you are causing me to repeat a lot to counter your claims.

 

Tragically I only really speak English (I read a bit of french but that is it). My main languages are more computer languages.

[BloodyMares]

The issue with Kal is that all he wants is what is possible and not what is likely. that's profoundly unsatisfying for someone like me, you, or Ithurael. Kal's mistake was not realizing that this thread is the wrong place for that exercise.

The more often I visit this topic (and the other one with destroy ending), the more I am convinced that this is the case with all people defending the ending of ME3. I have yet to see the deep narrative analysis on par with Shamus' or smudboy's that actually can show the writing from the good side. All arguments usually are about "misunderstood and unappreciated piece of art" or "hidden meaning" or something like that.

[kal_reegar]

From vigil conversation

 

- The Keepers mantain's the Citadel most basic functions.

- The Keepers were letf behind to operate and mantain the Citadel.

 

- The Keepers are controlled by the Citadel.

 

- Before each invasion, a signal is sent through the station, compelling the Keepers to activate the Citadel relay. After decades of feverish study, the scientists discovered a way to alter this signal. Using the Conduit, they gained access to the Citadel and made the modifications. This time, when Sovereign sent the signal to the Citadel, the Keepers ignored it. The Reapers are trapped in dark space."

 

- the Keepers are not longer directly controlled by Sovereign or its ilk. They evolved so that they only respond to the signals emitted by the Citadel itself."

 

- When the prothean altered the Citadel signals, they broke Sovereingn's hold over the keepers.

 

 

So, this is how the citadel works.

Every signal needs to pass through the citadel. Even the reapers signal is filtered by it. The keepers only respond only to the signals emitted by the Citadel itself. Then they are compelled to act.

 

The citadel works exactly as a transformer, a translator device.

It receive multiple imputs, signals, from different sources (from Sovereing, from the organics living there, from the catalyst, from Shepard using Vigil device etc). Signals are sent through the station, where they are "translated". They become citadel signals, emitted by the Citadel, and thus recognizable by the Keepers.

The Prothean scientist altered the Citadel's Signals (plurals).

So, the signals emitted by the Citadel have been modified by the prothean scientist, as they see fit, in order to prevent the Keepers to execute certain orders from certain beings (sovering and it's ilk)

 

Too much headcanon, perhaps... I go as much deductive as I can.

- The Prothean scientist altered the Citadel's Signals

- The Citadel is (part of) the Catalyst

- The Prothean scientist altered (part of) the Calatyst's Signals

 

 

 

We can also start debating if the catalyst can be couted (completely or partially) among "Sovereign's ilk" ("family, class, kind")

[gothpunkboy89]

Opinions don't matter.

 

But it is an opinion that it is the worst ending ever

[BloodyMares]

But it is an opinion that it is the worst ending ever

No argument here. It doesn't matter if it's considered "good" or "bad" (subjective adjectives). The only thing that matters is how many problems the ending has and how serious they are. I agree that bashing endings at this point is a waste of time. Everything has been stated over and over again. The problems have been spotted, the rest is up to Bioware's team whether to improve or not.

[Unata]

The only way I could understand the lack of action from the Keepers on the signals sent from the Reapers or even the Catalyst was the Protheans cut their ability to receive ANY signal outside their maintaining the Citidel programing, otherwise none of it would have made sense to me.

 

The Catalyst couldn't do anything with the citadel because of this cut, but there is one thing that bothered me, how the Reapers got it to Sol. Did they all grab a hold and warp to Sol?

[BloodyMares]

The Catalyst couldn't do anything with the citadel because of this cut, but there is one thing that bothered me, how the Reapers got it to Sol. Did they all grab a hold and warp to Sol?

They were powered by retcon.

[Ithurael]

 

From vigil conversation

 

- The Keepers mantain's the Citadel most basic functions.

- The Keepers were letf behind to operate and mantain the Citadel.

 

- The Keepers are controlled by the Citadel.

 

- Before each invasion, a signal is sent through the station, compelling the Keepers to activate the Citadel relay. After decades of feverish study, the scientists discovered a way to alter this signal. Using the Conduit, they gained access to the Citadel and made the modifications. This time, when Sovereign sent the signal to the Citadel, the Keepers ignored it. The Reapers are trapped in dark space."

 

- the Keepers are not longer directly controlled by Sovereign or its ilk. They evolved so that they only respond to the signals emitted by the Citadel itself."

 

- When the prothean altered the Citadel signals, they broke Sovereingn's hold over the keepers.

 

 

So, this is how the citadel works.

Every signal needs to pass through the citadel. Even the reapers signal is filtered by it. The keepers only respond only to the signals emitted by the Citadel itself. Then they are compelled to act.

 

The signal to open the citadel relay is sent through the citadel. And this was prevented as the sabotage prevented the keepers from receiving the signal as they ignored it. This did not affect them from receiving other signals emanating from part of the catalyst itself. And not EVERY signal needs to pass through. Just that ONE Signal. The signals emanating from the citadel itself are - as stated - emanating from the citadel itself. (Not from not through).

 

 

 

The citadel works exactly as a transformer, a translator device.

It receive multiple imputs, signals, from different sources (from Sovereing, from the organics living there, from the catalyst, from Shepard using Vigil device etc). Signals are sent through the station, where they are "translated". They become citadel signals, emitted by the Citadel, and thus recognizable by the Keepers.

The Prothean scientist altered the Citadel's Signals (plurals).

So, the signals emitted by the Citadel have been modified by the prothean scientist, as they see fit, in order to prevent the Keepers to execute certain orders from certain beings (sovering and it's ilk)

 

Too much headcanon, perhaps... I go as much deductive as I can.

- The Prothean scientist altered the Citadel's Signals

- The Citadel is (part of) the Catalyst

- The Prothean scientist altered (part of) the Calatyst's Signals

 

 

 

We can also start debating if the catalyst can be couted (completely or partially) among "Sovereign's ilk" ("family, class, kind")

 

 

FOUND THE HEADCANON!

 

The Prothean scientist altered the Citadel's Signals (plurals).

 

They only altered the one signal - that is it. That is all we have to go on. Where are you seeing that the protheans altered signals? I think you are assuming here.

 

So, the signals emitted by the Citadel have been modified by the prothean scientist, as they see fit, in order to prevent the Keepers to execute certain orders from certain beings (sovering and it's ilk)

 

Again, you assumed - invalidated by the lore - that all the signals were affected when it was, again, just the one signal going to the keepers.

 

 

 

Too much headcanon, perhaps... I go as much deductive as I can.

- The Prothean scientist altered the Citadel's Signals

- The Citadel is (part of) the Catalyst

- The Prothean scientist altered (part of) the Calatyst's Signals

 

The first part has already been proven wrong. It is the citadel's one signal to open the mass relay, not all of them.

 

The second part is true

 

The third part is, again, false. They only altered one part of the catalyst (the ability to send the open relay signal) not the open arms command (very much needed in sovereign's case). I have no problem believing the catalyst couldn't open the mass relay itself post sabotage because there is this information here present for us to review and prove the claim.

 

Though, I am happy you are stating it is more headcanon. Now, if you want this to be your headcanon - fine. I have no qualms. That is great. I always say that we should do what makes us happy - I power lift and terrorize my direct reports and/or work at cat shelters to help out (cause I love cats, a lot). However, there is a notable difference between what the material says and what you are saying - and you even provided us that difference. There is no reason you cannot use this as your preferred belief of how you wanted it to happen. But it is not factually represented in the material sadly.

 

 

We can also start debating if the catalyst can be couted (completely or partially) among "Sovereign's ilk" ("family, class, kind")

 

 

Do you mean counted? I think you do. Well, from what we know the reapers are part of the catalyst so - in essence - the reapers are part of the catalyst not really similar.  Ilk is those that are similar or the same kind. The catalyst is definitely not a reaper nor even similar to a reaper as there are no reapers that embody the collective consciousness of other reapers, but rather their entire consciousness as well as the citadel too. I can see how it can relate to a reaper, but the two are very very different. Now, I do know you may try to push this but I can only tell you is reeks of redefinition fallacy.

 

A solid try though

[rossler]

This from one of the guys who calls those he disagrees with morons who need everything explained to them.

 

I don't recall saying anyone was a moron. 

 

I do recall the second part. 

 

I guess I don't see the difference between "providing you enough information in order for things to make sense", and "needing everything spelled out". I mean that was one of the things people were saying ages ago was that they wanted the ending to make sense. It's not about a happy ending, it's not about closure. They just want the ending to make sense. They kept repeating it a lot.

 

I didn't mean anything harsh by it though. 

[themikefest]

The Catalyst couldn't do anything with the citadel because of this cut, but there is one thing that bothered me, how the Reapers got it to Sol. Did they all grab a hold and warp to Sol?

When talking with Barla Von in ME1, he will mention the Citadel's engines

[kal_reegar]

The Prothean scientist altered the Citadel's Signals (plurals).

 

it's not headcanon...

 

(minute 15.02)