255 réponses à ce sujet

[MortalEngines]

Rotkaepchen wrote...

MortalEngines wrote...

I do wish people would actually call it/her/him the Catalyst, instead of Star Child. They act like it/he/she doesn't have a name. 

I guess, it' hard to get warm with a character that's introduced only minutes ahead of the end.

I don't like it per say (it's interesting in terms of its origin and how it works but that's about it). I just don't understand when people say "we don't even know it's name! Let's call it Starchild!". It has a name, the Catalyst. It's like, the first thing it says to you.

I've also decided it's an 'it' now. Don't really think it can have a gender since it doesn't seem to be organic (who knows to be honest - wish we got to ask wtf it actually is).

Juromaro wrote...
You see Catalyst from the start, even in your dreams, he is everywhere, everything yet nothing at all?

 

Well, not necessarily. It depends. I assumed that the child at the beginning and in your dreams is just that. Simply a child who you are mourning the tragic loss of. The Catalyst takes the child's form as it is something familiar to you yet not completely familiar (as it would be strange for it to be Liara or some one you know).

It's all dependant on how you take it. There is plenty of room for speculation on that front. 

Modifié par MortalEngines, 09 avril 2012 - 01:31 .

[MortalEngines]

PurebredCorn wrote...

Hopefully this dlc will satisfy those fans who have more realistic expectations.

That's what I'm hoping .

[Drake_Hound]

MortalEngines wrote...

Rotkaepchen wrote...

MortalEngines wrote...

I do wish people would actually call it/her/him the Catalyst, instead of Star Child. They act like it/he/she doesn't have a name. 

I guess, it' hard to get warm with a character that's introduced only minutes ahead of the end.

I don't like it per say (it's interesting in terms of its origin and how it works but that's about it). I just don't understand when people say "we don't even know it's name! Let's call it Starchild!". It has a name, the Catalyst. It's like, the first thing it says to you.

I've also decided it's an 'it' now. Don't really think it can have a gender since it doesn't seem to be organic (who knows to be honest - wish we got to ask wtf it actually is).

Juromaro wrote...
You see Catalyst from the start, even in your dreams, he is everywhere, everything yet nothing at all?

 

Well, not necessarily. It depends. I assumed that the child at the beginning and in your dreams is just that. Simply a child who you are mourning the tragic loss of. The Catalyst takes the child's form as it is something familiar to you yet not completely familiar (as it would be strange for it to be Liara or some one you know).

It is a freaking stupid concept , the cataclyst , it simple a star child , it almost same trick Balder gate 4 used when they renamed it to dragon wars .

Cataclyst is he we put a kid there so you cannot shoot it , yeah the kids from total of 10 min cutscenes that will explain it all ... good for none intelligent people to reason with .

You know we did learn our lesson from previous games how they outsmarted EA .

[Menethra]

Juromaro wrote...

Menethra wrote...

string3r wrote...

Hopefully this will explain how two of my squadmates magically teleported to the Normandy and came back to life

Odds are they'll just have some video of joker picking them up but even then it doesn't explain how they casually get off the normandy on the jungle planet without a scratch expecially given that the normandy never had the medical facilities to heal kaiden / ashley >_>

Normandy didn't have a doctor on staff when VS got hurt. They have the equipment for some stuff but the major issues would still need to go to an actual hospital that's better equipped to deal with that kind of trauma.

I mean the crash on the collector base didn't injure anyone so I don't find it hard to believe the crash in 3 would have hurt anyone.

How does that explain managing to get blasted by a reaper then stepping off a ship without so much as a scratch? You saw shepard after getting hit by the laser, yet your squad mates are unharmed.

Sense it does not make, just like the majority of the ending.

Modifié par Menethra, 09 avril 2012 - 01:39 .

[Esquin]

Thanks Bioware for taking the time, money, and effort to fix something that should never have been broken in the first place.

Thank you for ruining the ending of one of the greatest sci fi stories of our generation. I think all your fans are collectively shocked at how you managed to totally destroy what should have been a fairly smooth landing.

And thank you for now deciding to add some closure and a full ending to a game that for some inexplicable reason you decided to release with only half an ending and a nonsensical one at that.

You're top blokes. Really.

[Wrathra]

Pairikas wrote...

Me: "I hate the Ending, its terrible."
Bioware: "Okay, I give you more of what you hate"

Spectacular.

[MortalEngines]

Drake_Hound wrote...

It is a freaking stupid concept , the cataclyst , it simple a star child , it almost same trick Balder gate 4 used when they renamed it to dragon wars .

What? Dragon Wars?

"Dragon Wars is a fantasy role-playing video game developed by Interplay Entertainment in 1989, and distributed by Activision. "

Dragon wars is not BG at all. 

Also I respect that you think that the Catalyst is a 'stupid' idea. I personally think it just needed more explanation and foreshadowing to it's statements.

Cataclyst is he we put a kid there so you cannot shoot it , yeah the kids from total of 10 min cutscenes that will explain it all ... good for none intelligent people to reason with .

You know we did learn our lesson from previous games how they outsmarted EA .

Giving you the ability to shoot at the Catalyst would solve what exactly? Killing the catalyst (something I'm not even sure is possible) would not aid Shepard in any way. I agree there should of been more explanation, but it wasn't completely nonsensical. 

I'm confused about your last sentance? Who outsmarted EA? Bioware? What's your point? 

Modifié par MortalEngines, 09 avril 2012 - 01:39 .

[Drake_Hound]

Juromaro wrote...

Drake_Hound wrote...

Yes I can , Cause the game of the first two continued on ! wait what you didn´t know that ?
Yes it continued on , you were happily cruising around in your ship doing left over missions . persueing romances.
Oh wait you forget that part ?

Or unless you died , but I guess already one notion you have to admit already .
So how long before I break down all your hypothisis about choices ?
Cause honestly maybe you didn´t even play the game ?
When you doubt choices , to you it didn´t matter , same way you are going to argue in endless circle .
And I have to quote everything you admit being wrong ..

Since already 1-0 for me .

None of the choices you make in any of the games amount to anything more than dialogue in the next game.

Did letting Helena Blake live change the missions on Omega? No
Did letting Fist live change the missions on Omega? No
Did killing the council change any missions in 2? Aside from dialogue no
Did gathering all the writings, turian artifacts, salarian tags, and resources change any mission in 2? Aside from some extra credits and resources no, missions still had the same outcome.
Did giving Tali the geth data cause her to join me on Freedom Progress? No, but it did open up more Dialogue.

What choice in Mass Effect 1 changed anything besides a xp boost, resource boost, credit boost or Dialogue in Mass Effect 2? Not a whole damn lot.

Those choices however did show up in Mass Effect 3, well all the main flags did. and all of them provided war assets so the only time any choice ever made a difference outside of dialogue was in 3.

Here we go , again now the small fry details it so predictable ..
Wait you saying the romances didn´t make a difference ?

That is 2-0 for me , try again beter sales pitch .

[Drake_Hound]

MortalEngines wrote...

Drake_Hound wrote...

It is a freaking stupid concept , the cataclyst , it simple a star child , it almost same trick Balder gate 4 used when they renamed it to dragon wars .

What? Dragon Wars?

"
Dragon Wars[/i] is a fantasy role-playing video game developed by Interplay Entertainment in 1989, and distributed by Activision. "

Dragon wars is not BG at all. 

Also I respect that you think that the Catalyst is a 'stupid' idea. I personally think it just needed more explanation and foreshadowing to it's statements.

Cataclyst is he we put a kid there so you cannot shoot it , yeah the kids from total of 10 min cutscenes that will explain it all ... good for none intelligent people to reason with .

You know we did learn our lesson from previous games how they outsmarted EA .

Giving you the ability to shoot at the Catalyst would solve what exactly? Killing the catalyst (something I'm not even sure is possible) would not aid Shepard in any way. I agree there should of been more explanation, but it wasn't completely nonsensical. 

I'm confused about your last sentance? Who outsmarted EA? Bioware? What's your point? 

Hahaha XD you really don´t know the story of dragons war , and baldurs gate , try a interview please it still on youtube , one of the few female programmers back then .

Then you will understand the story , I cannot believe you posted DW is not BG at all .
That is the problem with new age people , they don´t know facts from fiction , and then want to sell it to us .
Nice try need beter marketing people , current generation will not do EA .

[Esquin]

MortalEngines wrote...

Drake_Hound wrote...

It is a freaking stupid concept , the cataclyst , it simple a star child , it almost same trick Balder gate 4 used when they renamed it to dragon wars .

What? Dragon Wars?

"Dragon Wars is a fantasy role-playing video game developed by Interplay Entertainment in 1989, and distributed by Activision. "

Dragon wars is not BG at all. 

Also I respect that you think that the Catalyst is a 'stupid' idea. I personally think it just needed more explanation and foreshadowing to it's statements.

Cataclyst is he we put a kid there so you cannot shoot it , yeah the kids from total of 10 min cutscenes that will explain it all ... good for none intelligent people to reason with .

You know we did learn our lesson from previous games how they outsmarted EA .

Giving you the ability to shoot at the Catalyst would solve what exactly? Killing the catalyst (something I'm not even sure is possible) would not aid Shepard in any way. I agree there should of been more explanation, but it wasn't completely nonsensical. 

I'm confused about your last sentance? Who outsmarted EA? Bioware? What's your point? 

If the Catalyst does indeed do what it claims to do then killing it would actually be a fairly decent solution to the problem. Either way my Shepard would not accept the choices presented to him. He would sit down and just accept that it was over or shoot the catalyst. 

[Drake_Hound]

Juromaro wrote...

Drake_Hound wrote...

Juromaro wrote...

Drake_Hound wrote...

Yes I can , Cause the game of the first two continued on ! wait what you didn´t know that ?
Yes it continued on , you were happily cruising around in your ship doing left over missions . persueing romances.
Oh wait you forget that part ?

Or unless you died , but I guess already one notion you have to admit already .
So how long before I break down all your hypothisis about choices ?
Cause honestly maybe you didn´t even play the game ?
When you doubt choices , to you it didn´t matter , same way you are going to argue in endless circle .
And I have to quote everything you admit being wrong ..

Since already 1-0 for me .

None of the choices you make in any of the games amount to anything more than dialogue in the next game.

Did letting Helena Blake live change the missions on Omega? No
Did letting Fist live change the missions on Omega? No
Did killing the council change any missions in 2? Aside from dialogue no
Did gathering all the writings, turian artifacts, salarian tags, and resources change any mission in 2? Aside from some extra credits and resources no, missions still had the same outcome.
Did giving Tali the geth data cause her to join me on Freedom Progress? No, but it did open up more Dialogue.

What choice in Mass Effect 1 changed anything besides a xp boost, resource boost, credit boost or Dialogue in Mass Effect 2? Not a whole damn lot.

Those choices however did show up in Mass Effect 3, well all the main flags did. and all of them provided war assets so the only time any choice ever made a difference outside of dialogue was in 3.

Here we go , again now the small fry details it so predictable ..
Wait you saying the romances didn´t make a difference ?

That is 2-0 for me , try again beter sales pitch .

No, romances didn't change the endings nor the missions you did in ME1 &2. And they hardly made a difference in 3.

and 2-0 really? your offering nothing other than "no your wrong" and no here's why to back it up. so go troll somewhere else I'm done replying to you.

we are going for 3-0 so why you state those small fry choice then ?
Do they impact the ending in anyway ?
So with other words the example you use have no impact at all on the question you state .
So I just answer your small fry statement with a direct answer about choices .

Do they impact the ending , well your small fry example definetly not .
Mine with romances yes they do .. cause of loyalty level .. or did you forgot about that ?

[MortalEngines]

Esquin wrote...
If the Catalyst does indeed do what it claims to do then killing it would actually be a fairly decent solution to the problem. Either way my Shepard would not accept the choices presented to him. He would sit down and just accept that it was over or shoot the catalyst. 

It says it controls the reapers. I assumed it controlled in the sense that it created their purpose. The reapers themselves seem to be self-governing and thinking beings. They fulfill what the Catalyst instructs them to (complete the cycle) but they do it in a way they see fit. At least this is my explanation for their actions such as the heretic geth, Soverign and the collectors. 

This is just my idea of course.

But as I said before. We're not sure what the catalyst is and I'm inclined to believe it's not something you can simply 'kill'. You can replace it but you cannot remove it. If Shepard just accepts that his cycle is over and completed then he is STILL accepting that the Catalyst is right and in my opinion this makes the series even more worthless. 

Spent 3 games stopping the reapers and then let them win? Let all organics of that cycle be wiped out?

At least the choices break the cycle in some form. They all require a sacrifice (not just in the form of Shepard but Geth etc.) but they all accomplish what Shepard sent out to do. Stop the cycle.

Drake_Hound wrote...

Hahaha XD you really don´t know the story of dragons war , and baldurs gate , try a interview please it still on youtube , one of the few female programmers back then .

Then you will understand the story , I cannot believe you posted DW is not BG at all .
That is the problem with new age people , they don´t know facts from fiction , and then want to sell it to us .
Nice try need beter marketing people , current generation will not do EA .

 

No I don't know the story of Dragon wars, nor have I ever claimed to. Nor do I care. It wasn't made by Bioware so what is your point? And how is it in anyway relevent (Also how the heck is it BG4, when a) there is no BG3 and BG came out in 98' where as Dragon wars came out in 89')? 

Also don't make an assumption about me. I'm not a 'new age' person. I've played the classics and was brought up with old games. I'm just not wanting to get stuck in this stupid tribalism attitude with the gaming industry. Where fans think it's necessary to pit developers against each other and stand with one company.

I don't care who publishes a game or makes it. If it's a good game then I thank them for a great experience. If not, oh well.

Modifié par MortalEngines, 09 avril 2012 - 01:54 .

[Esquin]

MortalEngines wrote...

Esquin wrote...
If the Catalyst does indeed do what it claims to do then killing it would actually be a fairly decent solution to the problem. Either way my Shepard would not accept the choices presented to him. He would sit down and just accept that it was over or shoot the catalyst. 

It says it controls the reapers. I assumed it controlled in the sense that it created their purpose. The reapers themselves seem to be self-governing and thinking beings. They fulfill what the Catalyst instructs them to (complete the cycle) but they do it in a way they see fit. At least this is my explanation for their actions such as the heretic geth, Soverign and the collectors. 

This is just my idea of course.

But as I said before. We're not sure what the catalyst is and I'm inclined to believe it's not something you can simply 'kill'. You can replace it but you cannot remove it. If Shepard just accepts that his cycle is over and completed then he is STILL accepting that the Catalyst is right and in my opinion this makes the series even more worthless. 

Spent 3 games stopping the reapers and then let them win? Let all organics of that cycle be wiped out?

At least the choices break the cycle in some form. They all require a sacrifice (not just in the form of Shepard but Geth etc.) but they all accomplish what Shepard sent out to do. Stop the cycle.

Stopping the cycle the way the reapers want it stopped doesn't count. 

We stop it our way or not at all. 

[ReshyShira]

They are just clarifying why we should like the ending and why it's art. They don't believe the ending is poor or bad in any way and refuse to see it that way yet you're cheering them on OP?

[MortalEngines]

Esquin wrote...
Stopping the cycle the way the reapers want it stopped doesn't count. 

We stop it our way or not at all. 

And then everyone dies and it was all for nothing anyway. 

Am I the only one seeing that this sorta ending would be worse/least chosen if were an option? I mean, it's your opinion and I respect that. I just see that as pointless.

And the Reapers don't want the cycle stopped at all. The Catalyst only decides to stop it because he realizes it no longer works (As Shepard has made it to him). He then presents Shepard with the ways in which he can stop it. (The reapers do not want to be destoryed, yet this option is given to Shepard regardless, because it is a way).

If you want to 'kill' the catalyst (not that you really can) the ending to pick is destory then. The reprecussions are there not because the Catalyst wants them to be, but because that is how it is.

Modifié par MortalEngines, 09 avril 2012 - 01:59 .

[MortalEngines]

Juromaro wrote...

Okay last reply to you. You want "big fry" choices.

Mass Effect 1 Council live or die. Makes no difference to the ending 1 2 or 3, doesn't change ME1 ending outside of Dialogue.

Mass Effect 1: Kill Wrex. Doesn't change ending 1, 2 or 3. Doesn't change ME1 ending at all. ME2 Wrex is replaced with Wreav.

Mass Effect 1: Virmire Survivor. Doesn't change ending for 1, 2 or 3. Nothing changes except for some Dialogue.

Mass Effect 1: Human Council member, doesn't change ending 1, 2 or 3. Any change is retcon in 3

Mass Effect 1: Rachni Queen, doesn't change endings for 1 2 or 3, adds some Dialogue in 2 if saved, adds 100 War Assets in 3 if saved. Makes no difference if dead or alive in appearance in ME3, always in 3 regardless of your choice.

Mass Effect 2: Collector Base destroy or purge. Makes no difference in 3, Cerberus gets data anyway.

Mass Effect 2:  Crew members died. Makes no difference outside of Dialogue and side missions in 3.

Mass Effect 2: Squad Members died. Makes no difference outside of Dialogue and side missions. Main missions can still be completed, but dead Squad member doesn't appear.

Mass Effect 1 Romances: Does not change ending, does not make impact on missions. Dialogue/Cutscene only

Mass Effect 2 Romances: Does not change ending, does not make impact on missions. Dialogue/Cutscene only

Mass Effect 3 Romances: Does not change ending, does not make impact on missions. Dialogue/Cutscene only.

After this, I wouldn't bother anymore Juromaro , this guy is probably trolling. He makes barely any sense to me and just sprouts anything. His latest 'point' against me is that I don't know about Dragon Wars. 

Anyway, everyone knows that most Bioware games don't have game changing choices because they hate the idea of locking players out of content. They like people to be able to experience the same game with a few tweaks regardless of the choices they make.

Modifié par MortalEngines, 09 avril 2012 - 02:03 .

[Drake_Hound]

Juromaro wrote...

Drake_Hound wrote...

Juromaro wrote...

Drake_Hound wrote...

Juromaro wrote...

Drake_Hound wrote...

Yes I can , Cause the game of the first two continued on ! wait what you didn´t know that ?
Yes it continued on , you were happily cruising around in your ship doing left over missions . persueing romances.
Oh wait you forget that part ?

Or unless you died , but I guess already one notion you have to admit already .
So how long before I break down all your hypothisis about choices ?
Cause honestly maybe you didn´t even play the game ?
When you doubt choices , to you it didn´t matter , same way you are going to argue in endless circle .
And I have to quote everything you admit being wrong ..

Since already 1-0 for me .

None of the choices you make in any of the games amount to anything more than dialogue in the next game.

Did letting Helena Blake live change the missions on Omega? No
Did letting Fist live change the missions on Omega? No
Did killing the council change any missions in 2? Aside from dialogue no
Did gathering all the writings, turian artifacts, salarian tags, and resources change any mission in 2? Aside from some extra credits and resources no, missions still had the same outcome.
Did giving Tali the geth data cause her to join me on Freedom Progress? No, but it did open up more Dialogue.

What choice in Mass Effect 1 changed anything besides a xp boost, resource boost, credit boost or Dialogue in Mass Effect 2? Not a whole damn lot.

Those choices however did show up in Mass Effect 3, well all the main flags did. and all of them provided war assets so the only time any choice ever made a difference outside of dialogue was in 3.

Here we go , again now the small fry details it so predictable ..
Wait you saying the romances didn´t make a difference ?

That is 2-0 for me , try again beter sales pitch .

No, romances didn't change the endings nor the missions you did in ME1 &2. And they hardly made a difference in 3.

and 2-0 really? your offering nothing other than "no your wrong" and no here's why to back it up. so go troll somewhere else I'm done replying to you.

we are going for 3-0 so why you state those small fry choice then ?
Do they impact the ending in anyway ?
So with other words the example you use have no impact at all on the question you state .
So I just answer your small fry statement with a direct answer about choices .

Do they impact the ending , well your small fry example definetly not .
Mine with romances yes they do .. cause of loyalty level .. or did you forgot about that ?

Okay last reply to you. You want "big fry" choices.

Mass Effect 1 Council live or die. Makes no difference to the ending 1 2 or 3, doesn't change ME1 ending outside of Dialogue.

Mass Effect 1: Kill Wrex. Doesn't change ending 1, 2 or 3. Doesn't change ME1 ending at all. ME2 Wrex is replaced with Wreav.

Mass Effect 1: Virmire Survivor. Doesn't change ending for 1, 2 or 3. Nothing changes except for some Dialogue.

Mass Effect 1: Human Council member, doesn't change ending 1, 2 or 3. Any change is retcon in 3

Mass Effect 1: Rachni Queen, doesn't change endings for 1 2 or 3, adds some Dialogue in 2 if saved, adds 100 War Assets in 3 if saved. Makes no difference if dead or alive in appearance in ME3, always in 3 regardless of your choice.

Mass Effect 2: Collector Base destroy or purge. Makes no difference in 3, Cerberus gets data anyway.

Mass Effect 2:  Crew members died. Makes no difference outside of Dialogue and side missions in 3.

Mass Effect 2: Squad Members died. Makes no difference outside of Dialogue and side missions. Main missions can still be completed, but dead Squad member doesn't appear.

Mass Effect 1 Romances: Does not change ending, does not make impact on missions. Dialogue/Cutscene only

Mass Effect 2 Romances: Does not change ending, does not make impact on missions. Dialogue/Cutscene only

Mass Effect 3 Romances: Does not change ending, does not make impact on missions. Dialogue/Cutscene only.

Did you ever play the game cause you are boring , you are not even a fan .
Honestly when you going trough that route do you even love the game ?
Saying main characters didn´t matter , we will end up the whole game didn´t matter to YOU !!

So please stop cause you are only talking yourself into a deadman trap .
So don´t even have to continue on , about changes nothing , when you are using main characters that stereo type this frenchise as it doesn´t matter .

I think you are totally not even intune with this product .
Cause why play computer games ? it doesn´t matter !!

[MortalEngines]

Juromaro wrote...

What's dragon wars?

Some game made by Interplay in 89'. He said it's apparantly BG4 despite the fact that Baldur's gate was released in 98'...

Don't ask me why he brought it up. 

Modifié par MortalEngines, 09 avril 2012 - 02:12 .