3560 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

Still, it wasn't stated in the game that Sovereign was lying about the Citadel.

That doesn't really matter. The fact that we know Sovereign lied about something opens the possibility for it lying about other things.

[Natureguy85]

Sovereign isn't a reliable source. We know this because its statement of "We have no beginning. We have no end" is physically impossible, and it's clearly willing to speak untruths for the purposes of intimidation, or is simply ignorant of those truths.

 

That or it's been so long that Sovereign has forgotten. Or they were built by a dying/leaving race and all they know is their own existence. However, the statement about the Citadel and Relays is not on that level and is true. There is nothing to suggest otherwise, unlike the statement you quoted.

[kal_reegar]

Let me ask you a question (without provocative intent)

 

Let's assume that I want to write a bombastic character that speaks through metaphors and hyperbole (I have no beginning and no end = I've existed for so long and I will exist for so long that your pathetic time scale is meaningless... you insignificant insects can't even conceive such time span etc. etc.).

 

Is there a way to write it with such an attitude and at the same time not represent him as

a. an ignorant

b. a liar

c. someone that requires headcanon speculations in order to make sense

 

?

[BloodyMares]

Let me ask you a question (without provocative intent)

 

Let's assume that I want to write a bombastic character that speaks through metaphors and hyperbole (I have no beginning and no end = I've existed for so long and I will exist for so long that your pathetic time scale is meaningless... you insignificant insects can't even conceive such time span etc. etc.).

 

Is there a way to write it with such an attitude and at the same time not represent him as

a. an ignorant

b. a liar

c. someone that requires headcanon speculations in order to make sense

 

?

Just look at Galactus from Marvel

[Natureguy85]

Let me ask you a question (without provocative intent)

 

Let's assume that I want to write a bombastic character that speaks through metaphors and hyperbole (I have no beginning and no end = I've existed for so long and I will exist for so long that your pathetic time scale is meaningless... you insignificant insects can't even conceive such time span etc. etc.).

 

Is there a way to write it with such an attitude and at the same time not represent him as

a. an ignorant

b. a liar

c. someone that requires headcanon speculations in order to make sense

 

?

 

If you consider hyperbole to be lying, then, by definition, no.

[AlanC9]

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

Walk me through this. I don't see how either part of the argument works.

The way the system works as described by Vigil, you've got a receiver getting the signal from Sovereign, which transforms the signal into a different signal; the second signal then reaches the keepers, who activate the relay. Why not just cut out the middleman and attach the receiver to the relay directly? And yeah, my point was exactly that they should have had the Protheans messing with a system that made sense, so the specific act of sabotage would have been different.
 
And how does the presence of a Reaper mind on the Citadel change anything. Prothean scientists sabotage communication between a Reaper mind and the Citadel Relay. It doesn't matter which Reaper mind we're talking about. A paraplegic human's mind is located in his body, but if the spinal cord's busted he's still not moving his legs.

[Iakus]

Just look at Galactus from Marvel

Referring to oneself in the third person?

[Iakus]

 
And how does the presence of a Reaper mind on the Citadel change anything. Prothean scientists sabotage communication between a Reaper mind and the Citadel Relay. It doesn't matter which Reaper mind we're talking about. A paraplegic human's mind is located in his body, but if the spinal cord's busted he's still not moving his legs.

The thing is, though, Sovereign didn't know what happened to the Citadel or the Keepers.  Otherwise it wouldn't have needed Saren to track down beacons or Ilos to figure out what went wrong.  The Catalyst, being in control of the Reapers, could have let them know instantly.

[kal_reegar]

 

 

The thing is, though, Sovereign didn't know what happened to the Citadel or the Keepers.  Otherwise it wouldn't have needed Saren to track down beacons or Ilos to figure out what went wrong.  The Catalyst, being in control of the Reapers, could have let them know instantly.

 

I could be wrong, but aren't the beacon needed to find the location of the conduit (the sovering already know that the conduit exist, that it is a mass relay and it is located located in some old prothean planets...)? Saren and Sovering are not gathering info about the sabotage, they are gathering info about the conduit (Ilos, Mu relay etc.

They seemed to be perfectly aware that some prothean scientist used a relay to arrive on the citadel... they are searching for it!

[KrrKs]

[About the Reapers having built the Citadel]

Still, it wasn't stated in the game that Sovereign was lying about the Citadel.

That doesn't really matter. The fact that we know Sovereign lied about something opens the possibility for it lying about other things.

 

Doesn't the catalyst state that the Reapers built the relay network, too?

I can't remember if it mentions the Citadel in that Context specifically; but since the Citadel is a/the control instance of the network, it seems logically to be designed at the same time, and by the same entities as the relays.

[themikefest]

Doesn't the catalyst state that the Reapers built the relay network, too?

Leviathan says that the intelligence directed the reapers to build the relays

[gothpunkboy89]

They were powered by retcon.

 

Citadel has thrusters and can be moved though mass relay systems.

[Natureguy85]

Citadel has thrusters and can be moved though mass relay systems.

 

Is the second thing mentioned anywhere before it does so in ME3 to get to Earth?

[Dantriges]

Ah, I found it. It's described as very computer like. Basically they run on a simple logic factor. "Detect X = true, then Harvest." Another entry in there describes them as mindless.

 

I thought we were pondering about them not needing much control, just drop them where you want the carnage. Never said they were rocket scientists, but seems they were able to guard and select prisoners without munching their brains.

[Natureguy85]

Walk me through this. I don't see how either part of the argument works.

The way the system works as described by Vigil, you've got a receiver getting the signal from Sovereign, which transforms the signal into a different signal; the second signal then reaches the keepers, who activate the relay. Why not just cut out the middleman and attach the receiver to the relay directly? And yeah, my point was exactly that they should have had the Protheans messing with a system that made sense, so the specific act of sabotage would have been different.
 
And how does the presence of a Reaper mind on the Citadel change anything. Prothean scientists sabotage communication between a Reaper mind and the Citadel Relay. It doesn't matter which Reaper mind we're talking about. A paraplegic human's mind is located in his body, but if the spinal cord's busted he's still not moving his legs.

 

 

 

 

Awesome, Alan returns and we finally have an intelligent question/challenge. This is a great and totally fair question because mechanically, both set ups are similar and have similar problems. You're right that while our complaint is the Catalyst not having direct control over the Relay function because it requires unnecessary extra steps, you can also ask why Sovereign can't just send the "on" signal to the Citadel directly without using the Keepers. However, the two things are very different narratively and these differences are crucial. They are location/timing, future significance potential, and thematic value.  All three are actually related and there's some crossover. I hope my explanations do them justice.

 

 

 

 

Location/Timing : Worldbuilding vs Retcon

 

We see the Keepers on our first trip to the Citadel. They are discussed by Avina and Chorban the Salarian. Both conversations are optional but the game attempts to draw you into them by having Avina say to not disturb the Keeper and by having Ashley call attention to Chorban. Even if you don't learn about them, you do see them. They are introduced as a part of the setting and don't seem particularly important. So it's cool that at the same time we find out that the Citadel is actually part of a Reaper trap, we find out that these seemingly docile creatures are actually part of the insidious plot. This is a bit of conservation of detail and builds on an established element. While the question of "why the extra" step still fits as a logical matter, here it enriches the setting.  On the more subjective front, the "why" question is likely fridge logic, something we think of later, not at the time it is presented. It doesn't really damage our immersion or suspension of disbelief.

In contrast with the Keepers, the Catalyst is a Retcon. We know it immediately and this causes us to start examining the story with more scrutiny, which we might have already been doing since the beam run because of how strange everything is after that. The Catalyst is hinted at on Thessia, but dropped completely until we actually meet it. It's only story purpose is to deliver a bunch of exposition to change the central conflict of the story and explain the ending choices. He's barely a character, if at all.  Because the Catalyst stands at odds with the full plot of the first game, not some minor point, we immediately start questioning it. Nothing is enriched because of his existence. He doesn't add anything to the Reapers or the universe. If this exposition had to be delivered by some character that held all the cards against Shepard, we already had a giant spaceship named Harbinger that was the main antagonist of the previous game but relegated to a cameo in the third game.

 

 

 

Future significance potential

 

This has obviously has a lot to do with when they were introduced, but the Keepers and the Reaper's use of them has potential for the future. The Catalyst appears at the end and there is nothing after it. What do we do now that we know the Keepers are part of the Reaper plan? Vigil says they are harmless now, but what if their connection gets repaired? What can we learn from them? Could we use them to understand more about the Citadel? Can we turn on the Citadel Relay and go attack the Reapers in Dark Space? I'm sure there are more questions that this revelation raises that could have been explored in the second game. It's not Mass Effect's fault that the writers of ME2 decided to completely ignore these things.

 

 

 

 

Thematic value

 

Back in the first game, it looked like Synthetic vs Organic might be a strong theme. Sovereign had utter contempt for Organic life, though he didn't care for his fellow synthetics, the Geth, either. But even though Saren was wrong, the Reapers do use Organics, both the Keepers and Indoctrinated servants. Why? Was Sovereign just trying to intimidate Shepard with that contempt? Is there some deficiency in the Reapers that Organics fill? Maybe that contempt is even worse because Sovereign hates Organics but hates even more having to rely on Organics. Like the above section, these ideas, and more, could have been explored in the following games.

The Catalyst doesn't raise any such questions. The questions it raises damage our immersion and the narrative. All it does is dictate a theme, one which has not been supported by the game events.

 

 

 

The TL:DR is that the Keepers pull us into the story world but the Catalyst pulls us out of it.
 

[gothpunkboy89]

Is the second thing mentioned anywhere before it does so in ME3 to get to Earth?

 

The only stated requirements to use mass relay is thrusters to get you to the relay and a mass effect core to charge up. Both the Citadel has.

 

But given the way the relays work or at least appear to work you might not even need an ME core to use it. Simply something to trigger it to activate while moving at any speed and the Relay would fire it across space to the next one.

[Natureguy85]

The only stated requirements to use mass relay is thrusters to get you to the relay and a mass effect core to charge up. Both the Citadel has.

 

But given the way the relays work or at least appear to work you might not even need an ME core to use it. Simply something to trigger it to activate while moving at any speed and the Relay would fire it across space to the next one.

 

True. I think people were just unaware that the Relays could handle something as massive as the Citadel.

[dorktainian]

True. I think people were just unaware that the Relays could handle something as massive as the Citadel.

 

that doesn't make sense though.  The Citadel is established as both a relay, and the hub of the relay network in mass effect 1.  If the citadel moves then the relay network collapses.

 

to quote Douglas Adams...“Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.” 

 

If the citadel moves a fraction of a degree anyone travelling through a relay at the time is going to have a very bad day.  (remember the drift variables given in ME1) You think a fraction of a percentage movement in the vastness of space, then imagine the entire citadel moving to the Sol system.  Doesn't quite add up does it?  How would the relays re-establish contact?  Someone travelling to one place could end up flying straight through a star or into a planet.

[gothpunkboy89]

that doesn't make sense though.  The Citadel is established as the hub of the relay network in mass effect 1.  If the citadel moves then the relay network collapses.

 

Grand Central Station is a hub. Removal of it wouldn't collapse NY public transportation.

[dorktainian]

Grand Central Station is a hub. Removal of it wouldn't collapse NY public transportation.

yes, but the Citadel is 'The' hub.   Bit like plucking someones brain out.  Sure the rest of the bits would all still be there but they wouldn't be able to work without a brain.

[Natureguy85]

that doesn't make sense though.  The Citadel is established as both a relay, and the hub of the relay network in mass effect 1.  If the citadel moves then the relay network collapses.

 

to quote Douglas Adams...“Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.” 

 

If the citadel moves a fraction of a degree anyone travelling through a relay at the time is going to have a very bad day.  (remember the drift variables given in ME1) You think a fraction of a percentage movement in the vastness of space, then imagine the entire citadel moving to the Sol system.  Doesn't quite add up does it?  How would the relays re-establish contact?  Someone travelling to one place could end up flying straight through a star or into a planet.

 

It's only established as the "hub" in terms of being the control center from which the Reapers can control all the Relays. It's possible that all Relays can link to the Citadel Relay since it's super powerful, but we don't know. Nobody knew it even was a Relay until Vigil told Shepard and that plot point is dropped from the series. So is the "control center" idea, actually.

 

We know Relays can realign and this could be a problem if their target Relay moves, but the Mu Relay moved and we still go to Ilos. The Citadel moving would only affect Relays that link to it.

[NerdWithBigStick]

The ending isn't terrible but it's a deus ex machina plot device, and no, I don't think it was meant to be that clever.  It suffers from the same fate of Battlestar Galactica, ironically.  A reliance on a mysterious higher power that is never explained but has all the answers to every logical problem with the plot.

 

The rest of the game is excellent.  If it weren't for those last 5 minutes, people would tout ME3 as the best game in the trilogy, and not ME2.  When you play ME3 and then play ME2, you can see that in almost every way ME3 is the superior game, but an ending is what people remember, and unfortunately the ending in ME3 was ill-conceived.

 

Strictly IMO ... they would have done better to simply use the Destroy ending, omitting the Child entirely, not presenting it as a choice at all, and leaving out the complications with synthetic life entirely; the weapon destroys only the Reapers and not all synthetic life.  At the end, Shepard's hand comes up through the rubble, no matter what.  (In other words, what the MEHEM has accomplished.)

 

Had they done it that way, I am sure some people would have still complained "my choices, my choices, what about my choices" just as they did -- but the general widespread outcry about the game's ending wouldn't have happened, IMO.

[BloodyMares]

Had they done it that way, I am sure some people would have still complained "my choices, my choices, what about my choices" just as they did -- but the general widespread outcry about the game's ending wouldn't have happened, IMO.

The funny thing is, these choices mean nothing in ME3. It's a simple "pick your own ending" choice. In most RPG games you don't chose your ending, you get an ending that is dependent on your previous actions that is kind of implemented as EMS. So yes, the endings should've been Bad Destroy (Mass Relays explode, the Crucible wave destroys everything, Shepard dies), Medium Destroy (Every technology is destroyed, Mass Relays break but don't blow up, Shepard dies) Good Destroy (all AI and Reapers get destroyed, Shepard survives - the high ems ending that we got), Perfect Destroy (only Reapers are destroyed, Mass Relays remain stable, Shepard survives) and Refuse (if you don't want to do a Bad / Medium / Good Destroy).

That said, this game is probably the only example where I would've traded all the choices for a story that is not stupid and wraps up nicely.

[themikefest]

ME3 was all about getting a number. Didn't matter what was done in the game as long as the player got the ending he/she wanted.

[Obsidian Gryphon]

Just rambling. I've always wondered who's the major FTUs behind ME. They never planned for a trilogy. With the success of ME1, they decided to do it. I don't know how they went about it but nothing in #2 and #3 was cohesive and panning towards; how should the Reapers be dealt with, what must be done to find the info. I know some say writing the stories of a tv show is different from a game. Really? It's just writing in the initial stages, how tough is it? How tough is it to consult notes / lore of ME1 and plan the plausible structures of #2 and #3? Sit down and really plan where the chars would go, what they could do and so on.

 

Maybe they really did that and the corporate generals in their fat plushy armchairs look at it and said it's dishwater, longwinded with long dev months costing too much $$. They want something bombastic, grand, sexy fashions, fast and easy to produce.  

 

Maybe the problem arises that it's not a single person in control of the story tapestry. I'll cite two examples where the captain is really in charge. GL was in control of the SW concept. The OT worked because different people wrote the script / stories but he still had control at the helm. JMS was in control of the B5 tapestry because he himself planned out the five seasons arc carefully. He was tripped up by WB because they had no faith the tv series would work and couldn't give him the five year contract. So he had to make changes, etc and hope the contract was renewed every year. But he was still in control and the five seasons arc was completed satisfactorily.  They had visions and knew what they wanted.

 

Who was the visionary of ME? How much control did he have? I have the impression of many cooks that come and go and they all have no true grasp of the menu else Casey Hudson wouldn't have said they didn't know how to write the story.