3599 réponses à ce sujet

[Monica21]

No there is criticism then there is what many players direct towards BioWare. Criticism is as example someone pointing out the initial start of Priority Rannoch is set on very shaky ground. They obviously wanted the conflict between Quarians and Geth to be solved but the inital start to explain it wasn't well done. Then there is Lakus stating very clearly that shooting the Catalyst is BioWare purposefully being trolling ass hole to players and no one calling him out on that but me apparently. To a couple of people I don't remember which exactly claiming how stupid the Beam run is claiming they should have done X or Y which after watching he video is exactly what they did. Coming down to Themikefest claiming all they had to do to distract Harbinger was fire some assault rifles at it. As if some assault rifle fire at a 2KM long Reaper capable of withstanding direct hits from Dreadnought class ships would suddenly be bothered by small arms fire enough to distract it from the one and only purpose it had for leaving the space battle. All because themmikefest wanted BioWare to be idiots in how they set it up. During QMR's 200k character post to me he went onto list many reason why BioWare even putting Shepard into the Quarian conflict was completely idiotic. Many of those reasons were sheer but pulls. Like listing Shepard being saved from a falling elevator by Tali as if that could only possibly happen to Shepard as well as fanboying it up like you would expect someone who picked the name Quarian Master Race would about the Quarians.
 
Choosing to ignore rather key or important bits like the fact without Legion to disable the Geth Dreadnought the Geth would have no reason to leave the group alone meaning that Quarian Marine squad would face a fight to the drive core and back. Which even getting to that point is ignoring the fact that the Geth upgraded by the Reaper Code would not be able to be hacked long enough to get even a 10th of his claimed Quarian Marine forces onto the ship. Given that normal Geth can only be hacked for a short period of time. Only EDI who her self is also a full AI upgraded with Reaper Code fragments as well putting her as an equal to the upgraded Geth would have a chance to breach their firewall and open the door long enough for Shepard's crew to get into it.
 
When you take scraps of existing and established cannon and you use it to construct a completely made up implausible but only to you when looking at other established cannon simply so you can complain about the developer and how they handled something. That is toxicity. When another person calls that long winded fantasy out using in game examples to back up that points and is responded to by calling them a fan boy who knows nothing then clamming the heck up and other people cheering wanting to see QMR insult me some more. That is toxicity.
 
If society has lost the ability to distinguish between constructive criticisms and people generally being a holes. Like the one player who you could almost call it bragging about how stupid BioWare is because they didn't bother to fully look up the melting point of tungsten vs iron. Then society has really reached a new low.
 
And you are right most of Leldra posts could probably not be considered toxic. But look what I had to do to actually get her to respond to my question. Frankly it is over kill to get a simple responds. I shouldn't need to metaphorically slap someone in the face to get a responds to a question. Particularly after I've asked twice the usual way and gotten nothing.

I understand a desire to return to civility, but you spent five paragraphs responding to a two sentence post and all you did was point out where people disagreed with you. And where does it say that disagreement is a bad thing? What I see in this forum are people who really enjoyed the series and were supremely disappointed by the way it ended. What's wrong with a vigorous debate about the merits of that ending? What's wrong with pointing out the flaws? It's not toxic to tell Bioware that their product is flawed. And if you believe that the product doesn't have flaws, then that's fine too, but if you are going to engage in the debate then other people will require that you be intellectually honest about your presentation.

For what it's worth, no one is required to respond to you or anyone else. This whole forum system is entirely voluntary. So no, you shouldn't "metaphorically slap someone in the face" to get a response. That is what's toxic.

[themikefest]

Then there is Lakus stating very clearly that shooting the Catalyst is BioWare purposefully being trolling ass hole to players and no one calling him out on that but me apparently.

I've seen a couple other posters say the same. Not as much as lakus. But you wouldn't know that since you only respond to a few threads and no more.
 

To a couple of people I don't remember which exactly claiming how stupid the Beam run is claiming they should have done X or Y which after watching he video is exactly what they did.

But it is stupid. If you like it. more power for you. Yes it would've been better to do it a different way. You don't like I say that? Tough luck. If its a problem, DEAL WITH IT.
 

Coming down to Themikefest claiming all they had to do to distract Harbinger was fire some assault rifles at it. As if some assault rifle fire at a 2KM long Reaper capable of withstanding direct hits from Dreadnought class ships would suddenly be bothered by small arms fire enough to distract it from the one and only purpose it had for leaving the space battle.

I do believe assault weapons would distract Harbinger just like they were able to distract the destroyer in the cutscene. I never said I would use assault weapons to distract Harbinger, did I? I would have Shepard call for Joker to fire at Harbinger from behind to distract him. That's where you started getting all bent-out-of-shape about distracting means having to do damage. Remember that? If the Normandy is able to damage Harbinger, great. If not, great.  Since all I wanted is to have Harbinger distracted long enough for Shepard to get to the beam
 

All because themmikefest wanted BioWare to be idiots in how they set it up

Did I want Bioware to be idiots? I don't remember posting I want them to be idiots. Can you link a post where I posted that?

 

 

Since you seem to be calling me out and a couple others. I will call you out. You have a problem with people not agreeing with you. You resort to calling them names. In a recent post you called someone stupid. Don't know if the post is still there. You talk down to people like they have no idea what you're talking about when its you, pointed out by others, that has no idea what you're talking about. Even when someone proves you wrong, you deflect by saying he/she didn't understand what you post. Your posts are long winded that add a whole lot of nothing. You post pathetic, even disturbing analogies about whatever that has nothing to do with ME at all. A lot of your posts I read have been deleted because of your analogies
 
 

[Iakus]

 Then there is Lakus stating very clearly that shooting the Catalyst is BioWare purposefully being trolling ass hole to players and no one calling him out on that but me apparently.  

I believe I said they were being "passive aggressive".  Less crass that way.

 

And it's Iakus, with an I.  If you're going to call me out for not toeing your line on what is "acceptable" to criticize, at least spell the name right.  

[Mouser]

Funny thing, ME2 was starting to lay groundwork for the never-implemented "dark energy" ending.

 

Now THAT could have been a cool story. Almost too much like Xenosaga and a few other stories, though, so I can see why they didn't go with it.

 

Anybody else here reading Shingeki no Kyojin?  Just read the latest issue of that and couldn't help thinking of Mass Effect here. That's another direction they could have taken the story - basically skip ME2, which while a tremendous game really didn't do all that much to further the Reaper storyline (yes, we learned stuff, but that exposition could have been done anywhere). Then have the final chapter after the galaxy is united be the protracted battle showing world after world destroyed until a final desperate showdown.

 

Writing that, I do realize that basically describes what happens, but we didn't get to SEE any of it. A little battle on Palaven's moon, a couple of Reapers here and there and we're busy worrying about defusing bombs and stopping idiots from fighting in burning houses (aka Quarians attacking Geth). I'm reminded of a line in one of those 'Everything wrong with' YT vids when the Turian tells you he has a matter of 'galactic peace' - Sorry sir, the Reapers are here. Your alloted time for galactic peace has come and gone...

[rossler]

Also, you call that toxic? That if I see something that looks like the work of an incompetent writer, I dare assume that writer is actually incompetent rather than make up excuses? 

 

Yes, suggesting that the writers are incompetent is considered toxic, because it's name calling. Which is verbal abuse.

 

Now something along the lines of I wish the ending was explained a bit better or that it made more sense isn't toxic. 

 

As long as people don't perseverate about it. 

[Monica21]

Yes, suggesting that the writers are incompetent is considered toxic, because it's name calling. Which is verbal abuse.
 
Now something along the lines of I wish the ending was explained a bit better or that it made more sense isn't toxic. 
 
As long as people don't perseverate about it.

That is not verbal abuse. Verbal abuse is, "He sucks" etc. Verbal abuse is what happened to Jennifer Hepler. Stating an opinion about whether a writer is any good is not abusive. If I think someone is a bad writer I'm going to say that I think they're a bad writer. If I think that writing is bad I'm going to say that it's bad writing. I certainly hope that people at Bioware aren't so thin-skinned that they start creating their own safe spaces. So how about we not start creating them for them?

[AlanC9]

The Catalyst as an intelligence driving the Reapers is not a retcon (depending on how you interpret Sovereign's "We are each a nation, independent, free of all weakness" line).
 
THe Catalyst being bound to the Citadel, however, is.

I don't see what earlier established fact was being changed.

[AlanC9]

Here's another write-up of stuff about the ME games which illustrates my points, among a few others, rather comprehensively. I agree with about 90-95% of that. BTW, with regard to the ending, read part 49 linked in the post above this one, that sums things up nicely.

interesting series. But I get the feeling he didn't actually play Jade Empire, unless he deliberately dropped that data point to make the evolution story work.In the story he's telling JE should be happening now, not before ME and DA:O. And when he used Tali's magic voice recording as an example of "detail" my eyes started rolling. But we've seen that divide before.

[Ieldra]

And your claim that Bioware's more competent writers would agree with you if they could talk freely is based on what evidence?

A while ago a statement was posted (Reddit? I don't recall exactly where) in an account known to belong to Patrick Weekes, that claimed the ending was written by Casey Hudson and Mac Walters without any input from the rest of the team. If that's not an attempt to distance himself from the ending I've never heard one. Of course Bioware claimed it was rumor, but then, rumor is everything they didn't confirm, it doesn't mean it isn't true, and I find it more plausible to believe that Patrick Weekes actually wrote a plausible insider's statement about the ending rather than believing that this account had been hacked *and* an outsider managed to write a plausible insider's statement.
 

No story teller should need to alter the story they want to tell because someone might become offended by it. Unless they are purposefully trying to be offensive with the story which doesn't apply here.

Of course not, but that they didn't do this intentionally underscores my point. They aimed for the Synthesis to come across as a good ending, and they aimed for Control to appear acceptable. Ignorance comes into play when I observe that Control was embraced only by the secondary antagonist, namely TIM, and that no effort was made to negate the impression that we were committing an atrocity when implementing Synthesis. No groundwork was laid to actually *make* them appear acceptable, even less good. The result was that even those in favor of those outcomes as concepts often have trouble accepting them. I'm very much in favor of something like Synthesis, but even this - my preferred outcome - was not emotionally satisfying. OK, this could've been just the result of rushed writing, but given this writer's lines in the rest of the main plot I think my claim of ignorance is very plausible.
 

Themes do not change nor do factions change. The themes of the game have been pretty straight forward across the entire trilogy. Unless you got some specifics that show other wise. It is hard to argue with generic statements that can mean 1 thing or a dozen other. Factions as well never change but again this is a very broad statement without specifics to me to see any point you are making. By factions I assume you mean Reapers which no they didn't suddenly change.

Here are just two examples:
(1) The story of the geth and the quarians shows us that the only major synthetic faction in the trilogy was actually not warlike at all and never showed any inclination to wipe out organics. You can confirm that by making peace on Rannoch. Yet, the Catalyst's rationale for the cycle was that synthetics will always wipe out organics. This, while not exactly a contradiction, is a major narrative inconsistency. And we couldn't even bring it up with the Catalyst. In addition to that, the only *other* major synthetic character (EDI) never shows any signs of hostility towards organics in spite of having spent most of her life shackled by them.
 
(2) The geth are software entities, as said several times by Legion and the Codex. Thus, It makes no sense that Legion has to destroy themselves.
 

Ending's writings was not that bad. I do agree there are room for improvement in all aspects of the game but the writing isn't terrible. All the complaints about synthesis can fall towards the rest of the endings as well. Space magic which reminded me of a quote I saw some were that I found not that long ago.
 
Clarke's third law
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Had you read my linked thread, you would know that my claim of scientific ignorance is not aimed at the ending's space magic, but at those parts where science is supposed to work like IRL. Namely, biology. The amount of biological nonsense in the ME trilogy eclipses everything I've ever read or watched in the genre, and that's saying something. Also, the story regularly breaks its own rules and fails to follow up on consequences of established technological principles. For instance: Eezo is said to affect mass in response to a stimulus. Well, that's neat. Really, I like this simple idea that has so far-reaching consequences. But then: reducing mass doesn't actually make FTL possible. Thus, as an explanation for FTL, that element fails. The thing is, you needn't explain such things in an SF story, some fantastic elements work just fine unexplained as long as they don't become a topic in the story (which ftl travel never did, it was just a means to get to places), but *if* you're going to supply an explanation, it should make sense, hold up to *some* scrutiny using in-world logic and not collapse the moment when players start thinking about it.
 
Second example: biotics. This is supposed to use eezo, so the "singularity" would be a field of competing gravity. Well, in order to pull things towards it, it has to have a gravity that is significant compared to the gravity of the planet, and the local mass effect would have to exceed the planet's, which means that creating a singularity is gravitationally indistinguishable from placing another planet close by for the duration of the effect, and then withdrawing it. Which means that using this ability would impact the planet as a whole. I would expect earthquakes and suchlike at the least, if not an orbital perturbation. Yes, this is a nitpick, but even small problems gain significance if there are enough of them.


We are in an SF story (well, not any more in the end, but let's leave that aside for the moment). Which doesn't mean the science must be real, but it *does* mean that (1) where science implicitly works as IRL, the story should talk about with at least *some* competence instead of throwing words like "DNA" and "evolution" around with no idea of what they actually mean, and (2) where science and technology is fantastic, it should work and hold up to scrutiny in terms of the world's own rules. When that fails, there are going to be problems. Small problems for minor stuff that doesn't affect the story all that much, as in the case of eezo and FTL, but bigger problems if your inability or unwillingness to supply a working explanation affects the main plot. Which is where the Crucible comes in - specifically its history and how we're said to build the thing.

[Natureguy85]

I think that you need only to assume that the catalyst DOESN'T control the Citadel, not completely at least (a software cannot completely control the hardwar, at least not from a "mechanical" point of view). In other terms, the catalyst can't move/open etc the Citadel as  a "physical structure".

 

Given that, his presence (or absence) in ME1 is irrelevant.

 

The fact that I need to assume anything to make sense of it is bad enough.

 

why?

the catalyst doesn't specify if he is able or not to control the citadel from a mechanical point of view. He tell us nothing about it (on the contrary, it's implied that he's uncapable of material action, when he said that he cannot make the crucible work, and shepard is need to do that")

you also from ME1 that the keepers control the citadel from a mechanical point of view.

 

so this assumption is logical... 1+1 = 2

 

The catalyst cannot control the Citadel. Or maybe he can, but with heavy limitations.

 

Kal, what should be a red flag to you is that you have to figure out a way for the Catalyst to fit because it doesn't fit naturally.

 

 

 

 

I understand a desire to return to civility, but you spent five paragraphs responding to a two sentence post and all you did was point out where people disagreed with you. And where does it say that disagreement is a bad thing? What I see in this forum are people who really enjoyed the series and were supremely disappointed by the way it ended. What's wrong with a vigorous debate about the merits of that ending? What's wrong with pointing out the flaws? It's not toxic to tell Bioware that their product is flawed. And if you believe that the product doesn't have flaws, then that's fine too, but if you are going to engage in the debate then other people will require that you be intellectually honest about your presentation.

 

If you've picked up on Gothpunkboy's politics, you should know that dissent is not tolerable.

 

 

 

 A lot of [GPBs] posts I read have been deleted because of analogies

 

Really? That's funny. How do you know that's why?

 

 

 

I believe I said they were being "passive aggressive".  Less crass that way.

 

And it's Iakus, with an I.  If you're going to call me out for not toeing your line on what is "acceptable" to criticize, at least spell the name right.  

 

You know he can't spell.

 

 

 

 

take a step away from ME3 a minute and look at the bigger picture.  What did ME2 show us?

 

 

The Protheans failed the Crucible - chose synthesis by the sounds of it - and were artificially enhanced - which over time led to their utter demise as a species and forced their servitude under Harbinger and the reapers.  It introduced the fact that Shepard was important to the reapers, and humanity was now 'the' target of them in order for them to complete the cycle.  It made us aware that progress towards the end of the cycle was a lot further on than thought, as the human reaper was almost complete. 

 

That's not correct. ME2 showed us that the Reapers turned the Protheans into Collectors after their harvest. The Crucible wasn't a thing in ME2 and ME3 said the Protheans didn't finish it. We have no idea why the Collectors were acting then as opposed to later or what their plan was with the human Reaper. As a minor point, it wasn't close to being done. It still needed legs, a lot more humans processed, and the actual "Leviathan" shell.

[Natureguy85]

You have been watching far to many Disney movies and seem to have a very warped sense of reality. All that does will ensure you get to live and die of old age. Your children or grandchildren how ever will not. I think Narcissus from Greek Mythology just blushed in envy of loving yourself so much.  Why does this I can only call it a theme show up over and over again. Were people pick short term solutions that if they were in the universe would ensure they would be able to live a full life but would corn hole everyone that came after them.

 

Disney movies and even reality don't have anything to do with this. We're talking about a work of fiction, where it is internal consistency that matters most. There is no presented risk of synthetics wiping out organics except for the Reapers themselves.

 

 

 

 

Not really. Because Synthesis and Control to same extent allows people to still chart their own courses without that fun side effect of mass murder and death in the future. Destroy is more a leap of faith. One that if you paid attention to the game you would realize might not be the best.

 

With Synthesis. nobody gets a choice about the fundamental change to what they are. With Control, they are now under the rule of an AI with a Reaper army. But you probably see totalitarianism as a good thing so this point may be lost on you.

 

 

 

 

Kind of the point I'm trying to make about how much a rouge AI could corn hole organics.

 

And again every thing I stated is based on what WE can do right now without being computer programs. It is entirely possible for people to hack the Onstar Signal and remotely control your car by applying the breaks or cutting the engine.

 

The Catalyst makes claims about inevitability. What could or might happen is different and that uncertainty is reason enough to reject the Reapers. Those things could happen, but don't and haven't. If they ever do, the galaxy will deal with that problem then. Maybe they will lose and even be wiped out. But they got their chance to try.

 

It doesn't matter what we can do. What matters is what the story allows for. This is a concept you seem to have a great deal of trouble understanding.

 

 

 

 

My analogies work. Ever seem to notice the people that keep saying that my analogies don't work are also the same people that disagree with the point I'm trying to make? Seems rather suspect don't you think?

 

So you only think they work because you made them.

 

 

 

Culturally sensitivity is a non issue when creating a story unless you are trying to market that story to a specific culture. No story teller should need to alter the story they want to tell because someone might become offended by it.

 

Ending's writings was not that bad. I do agree there are room for improvement in all aspects of the game but the writing isn't terrible. All the complaints about synthesis can fall towards the rest of the endings as well. Space magic which reminded me of a quote I saw some were that I found not that long ago.

 

The comment about cultural insensitivity was not about being offended, it was that they didn't recognize what they meant to be seen as a good thing would be viewed as horrific by their audience.

 

The ending's writings were terrible. The problem with Synthesis isn't that it's "space magic;" it's that it doesn't fit in with the rest of the universe. It isn't based on or similar to anything else presented in the story. It's simply introduced at the end and not explained. Calling it "technology" doesn't fix this problem. While things like the Mass Effect and biotics could fairly be called "space magic," they are introduced at the beginning as part of the world-building.

 

 

 

Yes, suggesting that the writers are incompetent is considered toxic, because it's name calling. Which is verbal abuse.

 

Now something along the lines of I wish the ending was explained a bit better or that it made more sense isn't toxic. 

 

No it isn't. It's a criticism of their work and skill level at something. It's not an attack on them or their value as a person.

 

 

 

I don't see what earlier established fact was being changed.

 

Retcons don't have to change established fact. They just have to exist where they didn't before. So in this example, the Catalyst's existence raises questions about ME1 that we didn't have previously. When ME1 was written, the Catalyst did not exist. When ME3 created the Catalyst, he gets retroactively written into ME1.

 

 

 

interesting series. But I get the feeling he didn't actually play Jade Empire, unless he deliberately dropped that data point to make the evolution story work.In the story he's telling JE should be happening now, not before ME and DA:O. And when he used Tali's magic voice recording as an example of "detail" my eyes started rolling. But we've seen that divide before.

 

I haven't played Jade Empire so I don't know what you mean by "should be happening now" but what made your eyes roll about Tali finding the recording? He isn't talking about the Council accepting it as proof of anything. He's talking about a few lines of dialogue being used to establish things about the opposing force, the character, and the universe.

[BloodyMares]

Yes, suggesting that the writers are incompetent is considered toxic, because it's name calling. Which is verbal abuse.

 

Now something along the lines of I wish the ending was explained a bit better or that it made more sense isn't toxic. 

 

As long as people don't perseverate about it. 

You've gotta be kidding me. I'm sorry to horn in, but you're just wrong. Namecalling is when you offend someone specifically for their personal traits. If you tell that someone does their job poorly it's not name calling, it's criticism. I haven't seen anyone here name calling authors (maybe Hack Walters comes close to this) with intent to hurt them personally. If ME3 authors can't take criticism then they're just amateurs and not professionals. When an actor can't act on screen he's a bad actor. When doctor ends up damaging his patients more than helping them he's a bad doctor. When an author writes a terrible, nonsensical, immersion breaking story he is a bad author.

[kal_reegar]

Retcons don't have to change established fact. They just have to exist where they didn't before. So in this example, the Catalyst's existence raises questions about ME1 that we didn't have previously. When ME1 was written, the Catalyst did not exist. When ME3 created the Catalyst, he gets retroactively written into ME1.

 

 

this is totally true, of course.

the catalyst is something very cheap, artistically. And the first time was into ME3 very very badly.

it wasn't wanted, and it wasn't needed.

 

but, at least, after the EC the catalyst doesn't violate the internal consistency of the ME world.

[dorktainian]

but, at least, after the EC the catalyst doesn't violate the internal consistency of the ME world.

 

 

Consistency?  

 

It (star jar) basically destroys the previous narrative by removing any sense of awe the player had for the reapers.  The logic behind the reapers is pretty much garbage as well.  Create synthetics to stop organics from killing synthetics by creating more synthetics that kill organics to stop them killing synthetics?  Really?

 

The plot was well and truly lost.

[Natureguy85]

this is totally true, of course.

the catalyst is something very cheap, artistically. And the first time was into ME3 very very badly.

it wasn't wanted, and it wasn't needed.

 

but, at least, after the EC the catalyst doesn't violate the internal consistency of the ME world.

 

Like dorktanian, I am confused. What about the EC made the Catalyst consistent? He still breaks the plot of the first game.

[kal_reegar]

Consistency?  

 

It (star jar) basically destroys the previous narrative by removing any sense of awe the player had for the reapers.  The logic behind the reapers is pretty much garbage as well.  Create synthetics to stop organics from killing synthetics by creating more synthetics that kill organics to stop them killing synthetics?  Really?

 

The plot was well and truly lost.

 

 

come on, it's not like that.

the reapers goal is to eradicate advanced organics civilizations before they are able to create the kind of synth that will destroy all organic life (a sort of grey goo scenario, I suppose).

the axiom  (synth and organics will always try to destroy each other, and synth will prevail) can be wrong, but the reasoning of the catalyst/reapers is not flawed

[kal_reegar]

Like dorktanian, I am confused. What about the EC made the Catalyst consistent? He still breaks the plot of the first game.

 

why?

the plot of ME1 is to stop the Soverign (and the reapers fleet) from taking control of the Citadel.

the catalyst is irrelevant (provided that he doesn't "mechanically" control the citadel, which is entirely possible)

[Natureguy85]

why?

the plot of ME1 is to stop the Soverign (and the reapers fleet) from taking control of the Citadel.

the catalyst is irrelevant (provided that he doesn't "mechanically" control the citadel, which is entirely possible)

 

That's not the EC. That's the excuse required to jam the Catalyst into the story. Why wouldn't he mechanically control the Citadel? It's his home and part of him. And what part of the EC made this make sense for you that wasn't in the original ending?

[kal_reegar]

That's not the EC. That's the excuse required to jam the Catalyst into the story. Why wouldn't he mechanically control the Citadel? It's his home and part of him. And what part of the EC made this make sense for you that wasn't in the original ending?

 

Your PC is "home and part" of your Windows 10 (or other operating system). In some ways, the operating system IS your PC. It is what makes your PC more than just plastic and cables.

The operating system can do A LOT of things with your PC. It controls many of its functionalities.

But it cannot move the PC from point A to point P, or remove a cable, or open/close the screen, and other mechanical activities

 

It is perfectly possibile that the catalyst is a "program" with limited "mechanical" abilities.

 

 

The EC provides answers. A lot of answers. Also, the refusal ending is amazing (it shows how "Shepard changed the variables -> the reapers candestry this cycle, but not the next one)

The original version was so vague, so confused, that it was almost impossible to understand what was going on.

[Natureguy85]

Your PC is "home and part" of your Windows 10 (or other operating system). In some ways, the operating system IS your PC. It is what makes your PC more than just plastic and cables.

The operating system can do A LOT of things with your PC. It controls many of its functionalities.

But it cannot move the PC from point A to point P, or remove a cable, or open/close the screen, and other mechanical activities

 

It is perfectly possibile that the catalyst is a "program" with limited "mechanical" abilities.

 

 

The EC provides answers. A lot of answers. Also, the refusal ending is amazing (it shows how "Shepard changed the variables -> the reapers candestry this cycle, but not the next one)

The original version was so vague, so confused, that it was almost impossible to understand what was going

 

Are all those mental gymnastics tiring?

 

Kidding aside, you have to go to a great stretch to compare a supposed intelligence at the level of the Catalyst to my OS. Yes, it's possible that the Catalyst can't control the Citadel, but it is not plausible. It's a ridiculous idea but one you're required to adopt in order for the Catalyst to make sense and not break ME1. The Citadel isn't just a place for the Catalyst to hang out; it's a central component of the Harvest plan.

 

You're right that the EC does those things but that wasn't what I asked. You stated that the Catalyst doesn't violate the internal consistency of ME after the EC and I am asking what you mean. So far you've just described other, unrelated details the EC provides.

[kal_reegar]

Are all those mental gymnastics tiring?

 

Kidding aside, you have to go to a great stretch to compare a supposed intelligence at the level of the Catalyst to my OS. Yes, it's possible that the Catalyst can't control the Citadel, but it is not plausible. It's a ridiculous idea but one you're required to adopt in order for the Catalyst to make sense and not break ME1. The Citadel isn't just a place for the Catalyst to hang out; it's a central component of the Harvest plan.

 

You're right that the EC does those things but that wasn't what I asked. You stated that the Catalyst doesn't violate the internal consistency of ME after the EC and I am asking what you mean. So far you've just described other, unrelated details the EC provides.

 

But the catalyst was created by the Leviatans to study and solve a problem. They had no reason to make him capable of complex material action, like to activate a mass relay, to run an entire space station  etc.

He conceived the Harvest plan, yes, but he need "manpower" to see it realized

The catalyst as a being of "pure intellect", with very limited material/mechanical abilities, sounds very plausible to me.

 

 

 

 

You're right that the EC does those things but that wasn't what I asked. You stated that the Catalyst doesn't violate the internal consistency of ME after the EC and I am asking what you mean. So far you've just described other, unrelated details the EC provides.

 

Before the EC there were hundreds of possible interpretations of the ending, and almost all of them had plot holes. It was impossibile to establish which was the right, logical interpretation. Even indocrination theory was plausibile/possible.

I suppose that the right, consistent interpretation has always been there, but it was almost impossible to "see" it, and to fully understand it.

After the EC, imho, the "right" interpretation has been canonized and well explained.

If you're willing to "accept" a few, possible (not certain, but possible) things (like the catalyst as a being uncapable of controlling the Citadel), the consistency of the saga is preserved.

[Eryri]

But the catalyst was created by the Leviatans to study and solve a problem. They had no reason to make him capable of complex material action, like to activate a mass relay, to run an entire space station etc.
He conceived the Harvest plan, yes, but he need "manpower" to see it realized
The catalyst as a being of "pure intellect", with very limited material/mechanical abilities, sounds very plausible to me.




Before the EC there were hundreds of possible interpretations of the ending, and almost all of them had plot holes. It was impossibile to establish which was the right, logical interpretation. Even indocrination theory was plausibile/possible.
I suppose that the right, consistent interpretation has always been there, but it was almost impossible to "see" it, and to fully understand it.
After the EC, imho, the "right" interpretation has been canonized and well explained.
If you're willing to "accept" a few, possible (not certain, but possible) things (like the catalyst as a being uncapable of controlling the Citadel), the consistency of the saga is preserved.

But the Catalyst had enough physical capability to build an army sufficient to bring down the Leviathans. It's also not clear who built the Citadel, or when. It doesn't seem well suited to giant aquatic monsters. It's more likely that the Catalyst itself designed it as part of its trap and had the Reapers build it, so it's bizarre, (and incredibly convenient for the plot), that it would choose to cripple its ability to control it's own design.
Lastly, the control epilogue shows the citadel closing after the blue beam fires. The Shepalyst is the only thing likely to do that, so it's probable that its predecessor could do the same. This, of course, raises the question why it couldn't do the same for Sovereign, or open the master relay.

It really is difficult to exaggerate how badly the Catalyst affects the believability of this entire fictional setting.

[kal_reegar]

But the Catalyst had enough physical capability to build an army sufficient to bring down the Leviathans. It's also not clear who built the Citadel, or when. It doesn't seem well suited to giant aquatic monsters. It's more likely that the Catalyst itself designed it as part of its trap and had the Reapers build it, so it's bizarre, (and incredibly convenient for the plot), that it would choose to cripple its ability to control it's own design.
Lastly, the control epilogue shows the citadel closing after the blue beam fires. The Shepalyst is the only thing likely to do that, so it's probable that its predecessor could do the same. This, of course, raises the question why it couldn't do the same for Sovereign, or open the master relay.

It really is difficult to exaggerate how badly the Catalyst affects this entire fictional setting.

 

but the catalyst did not physically create the army that bring down the Leviathans.

Can we say that the scientists of project manhattan create the nuclear bomb? Yes, of course.

But i doubt that they even touch a bolt in order to assemble it...

 

 

The sherpalyst is an "updated" version of the catalyst, a sort of catalyst 2.0., yes.

But it is also something different, generated by the immense amount of energy released by the crucible.

We cannot know what are the abilities and the limitations of the sherpalist

[gothpunkboy89]

An author's ability to solve a conflict with magic is directly proportional to how well the reader understands said magic

Sanderson's First Law

 

Not quite the same. Sanderson's talks about literal magic like Harry Potter stuff. Clarke is more talking about the ability to talk to someone across the planet using a blue tooth head set connected to a phone 20 feet away. To someone in say the 18th or later century we would appear to be powerful sorcerers.  The ability to cure diseases with a single syringe full of antibiotics or prevent out breaks of crippling diseases like polio would seem like magic. Hell WiFi is still treated almost like magic in today's society because not many seem to fully understand how it works. Just that connecting to it lets your computer/smart phone wirelessly look at cat videos on the internet.

 

So you kind of missed entirely the point by trying to quote someone who is talking bout literal magic and not simply the fact technology advanced enough that people don't fully grasp the workings behind it would seem like magic to them. 

[rossler]

Synthesis may seem like magic to some, but to the Reapers, it's their way of reproducing.