I might have an interview published and I wanted to see if this statement is correct or has some holes in it. This is regarding the fact that the catalyst is chatting with Shepard and talks about controlling the Reapers.
It makes me wonder how much of Sovereign's work in Mass Effect was even necessary if the Catalyst controls the Reapers, since the Catalyst shouldn't need Sovereign to do anything. Instead, the Catalyst could have notified the Reapers in dark space to pour through the Citadel relay. There are other plot issues to me as well.
That's one of the major problems with the ending, it should've been Harbinger that rules them with an iron fist, not the Catalyst. That, and Harbinger should've overthrown the catalyst, afterall, synthetic creations "always" overthrow their creators.
Post by realsurvivor686 on Mar 22, 2017 20:06:53 GMT
The catalyst may, or may not be a purposefully ambiguous character. It also is a Reaper-aligned intelligence, so take everything it says with a grain of salt.
The Catalyst may very well have resided on the Citadel - hence why it could have been disabled by the Prothean science team. As a result, the old methods of shutting down the mass relays, via the Citadel, went out the window. The Catalyst doesn't so much reside on the Citadel, as it is imprisoned. At best it can maintain very limited contact with its kindred. At worst, it is completely isolated and Sovereign assault was an attempt to free it and utilize it to shut down the Relay network.
realsurvivor686 I know, this is when things get messy discussing this crazy stuff. I suppose if the catalyst says, "I control them," I'm taking him at face value. However, I could be remembering the quote incorrectly which throws my view out the window as well. Let alone what you bring up about being lied to by the catalyst or the catalyst not being aware of everything.
That said, did Mass Effect ever do that with a character? Lying and making you think it was true, without making it obvious later that they were not? I just don't remember the trilogy using that narrative trick...but it is a big game.
That's true, but don't they always resolve it as clear that it was a lie? Whereas if the catalyst lied they did not ever confirm that? That's what I'm really after. The author/writer lying to the audience and then confirming it was a lie later.
This discussion has already made it clear that bringing too many details is going to create problems so I'll try to get them removed.
EDIT: Ooo, I thought of one. Rana on Virmire, and if spared, on Tuchanka. She is an example of "was she lying or not?" and really, we never know for sure. OK, it happens...but still, I'm not buying the catalyst. The most likely case to me is still that the writers did forget about the main plot of ME1. If they had remembered that, I think there would have been something to lampshade it. At least, I would have if I had written it.
Just a quick note: if you choose 'refuse' ending, doesn't the Catalyst take the shape of Harbinger? As in, the Catalyst was ALWAYS Harbinger, lying to you? That's been my interpretation of it, at least. Could be wrong.
I don't need religion, I have ethics and communism - Lt. Phil Cherry, USN