The Catalyst is in the Citadel it is not THE Cidtadel Mar 8, 2019 15:27:24 GMT gothpunkboy89 likes this
Post by kalreegar on Mar 8, 2019 15:27:24 GMT
Sometimes I regret not having studied psychology. The reasons why so many people reject the catalyst (and I mean a total, viscreal rejection, beyond the simple "I didn't like it" "it could have been done better") are mysterious, incomprehensible, and fascinating.
1) can we hypothesize plausible explanations regarding the why the reasons why catalyst needed the sovereing/saren in ME1 to activate the portal?
Yes, I've read dozens of possibile explanations over the years.
2) is the purpose of the reapers believable??
Yes, tech singularity, AI surpassing and destroying their creatores and such things are a science fiction topos. A constant tech-reset is a pragmatic and effective solution. And even if you considered the reapers goal as unacceptable and illogical .. well, maybe the axioms of the catalyst are indeed flawed. The game leaves every player free to think as he wants on the subject
3) can we hypothesize plausible explanations regarding the why the catalyst speaks with shepard, helps him and urges him to use the crucibles? Yes, I've read dozens of them. And the catalyst itself is very clear. The reapers are no longer a valid solution (refusal ending proves it). The crucible has changed the variables. Shepard is now free to choose a new solution for this cycle.
What's so strange/illogic/unacceptable? The crucibles can extinguish all the reapers (and all synthtetic life) in half a second. It was built in a few months. Its projects are scattered everywhere. It has not been activated this time, but the variables are definitely changed.
The catalyst admits the failure of its previous solution and declares itself willing to allow new solutions. Shepard (the avatar of this cycle) is now free to choose (and the catalyst reiterates this concept several times). If he does not choose, the cycle will continue until the inevitable defeat.
There is no plot hole. No inconsistency.
Only the understandable estrangement/shock of a uber-genocidal-villain that appears accommodating, reasonable, willing to peacefully yield.
But this is an ethical problem, at most.
And ok, ok... making the ultra-final-boss being a ghoslty child with sweatshirt is artistically questionable.
Synthesis is something too close to space magic. The last 20 minutes are maybe too anticlimactic, the battle against the archdemon is certainly more satisfying, but... de gustibs.
Ethical and artistic judgments should not have anything to do with consistency.
Mass effect ending is not perfect, and everyone can legitimately dislike it.
But totally reject the ending of an extraordinary trilogy? Busy themselves inventing plot holes where there are none, just to justify that visceral rejection? Why, in the name of the Maker, why?
And all of this by people who have spent (and continues to spend) 2000+ hours playing mass effect again and again... this is beyond my understanding, really.
To be clear: this is not a criticism, everyone can think and act as they like.
But the Mass Effect ending triggered such amazing reactions that we must necessarily acknowledge its extraordinariness