230 réponses à ce sujet

[zambot]

m2iCodeJockey wrote...

Hulk wrote...
...HULK DIDN'T FIND THE MOMENT TO BE DEUS EX MACHINA BECAUSE WE WERE QUITE LITERALLY SEARCHING FOR THE CATALYST FIGURE FOR THE ENTIRE GAME...

That was not correct.
ME1 "Stop Saren from launching a Reaper invasion"
ME2 "Stop the Collectors from collecting humans"
ME3 "Assemble a space army and Doom's Day Device to challenge the Reaper invasion"

At no time was I looking for a 3 1/2 foot tall avatar of an AI suffering from a recursion fault...

I can see hulk's point on this one.  I forget when in ME3 you first learned there was a "catalyst" component to the crucible, but you do learn about it at some point.  The fact that it turns out to be something different from what the protagnist expects can (if implementented correctly) be a good plot device.  Again, I disagree with hulk, but I see his point.

[Blueprotoss]

m2iCodeJockey wrote...

Hulk wrote...
...HULK DIDN'T FIND THE MOMENT TO BE DEUS EX MACHINA BECAUSE WE WERE QUITE LITERALLY SEARCHING FOR THE CATALYST FIGURE FOR THE ENTIRE GAME...

That was not correct.
ME1 "Stop Saren from launching a Reaper invasion"
ME2 "Stop the Collectors from collecting humans"
ME3 "Assemble a space army and Doom's Day Device to challenge the Reaper invasion"

At no time was I looking for a 3 1/2 foot tall avatar of an AI suffering from a recursion fault...

A conventional victory isn't possible agianst the Reapers in this cycle while you shouldn't forget that ME1 and ME2 was also about "assembling a space army and Doom's Day Device to challenge the Reaper invasion".  A real example of a Deus Ex Machina would be the winnings from the final dodgeball match to buy Globo Gym in Dodgeball: a true underdog story.

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 18 août 2012 - 05:44 .

[AresKeith]

Blueprotoss wrote...

m2iCodeJockey wrote...

Hulk wrote...
...HULK DIDN'T FIND THE MOMENT TO BE DEUS EX MACHINA BECAUSE WE WERE QUITE LITERALLY SEARCHING FOR THE CATALYST FIGURE FOR THE ENTIRE GAME...

That was not correct.
ME1 "Stop Saren from launching a Reaper invasion"
ME2 "Stop the Collectors from collecting humans"
ME3 "Assemble a space army and Doom's Day Device to challenge the Reaper invasion"

At no time was I looking for a 3 1/2 foot tall avatar of an AI suffering from a recursion fault...

A conventional victory isn't possible agianst the Reapers in this cycle while you shouldn't forget that ME1 and ME2 was also about "assembling a space army and Doom's Day Device to challenge the Reaper invasion".

where in ME1 and ME2 was it about a space army and Doom's Day Device?

[Blueprotoss]

AresKeith wrote...

where in ME1 and ME2 was it about a space army and Doom's Day Device?

ME1
- focus on the Alliance and humanity
- you look and build your crew/squadmates/army
- Vigil became the "Doom's Day Device"
- a galaxy wide build up started

ME2
- focus on Cerbereus and humanity
- you look and build your crew/squadmates/army 
- the Reaper IFF became the " Doom's Day Device"
- the galaxy wide build up continues

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 18 août 2012 - 05:54 .

[AresKeith]

Blueprotoss wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

where in ME1 and ME2 was it about a space army and Doom's Day Device?

ME1
- focus on the Alliance and humanity
- you look and build your crew/squadmates/army
- Vigil became the "Doom's Day Device"
- a galaxy wide build up started

ME2
- focus on Cerbereus and humanity
- you look and build your crew/squadmates/army 
- the Reaper IFF became the " Doom's Day Device"
- the galaxy wide build up continues

1. a crew/squadmates are not an army, and Cerberus definitly wasn't an Army in ME2

2. Vigil and the Reaper IFF are not Doom's Day Devices

[D24O]

zambot wrote...

I can see hulk's point on this one.  I forget when in ME3 you first learned there was a "catalyst" component to the crucible, but you do learn about it at some point.  The fact that it turns out to be something different from what the protagnist expects can (if implementented correctly) be a good plot device.  Again, I disagree with hulk, but I see his point.

Doesn't the Catalyst come in after the halfway point? IIRC it comes around the Thessia arc, or maybe before Rannoch, don't remember for sure.

[essarr71]

D24O wrote...

zambot wrote...

I can see hulk's point on this one.  I forget when in ME3 you first learned there was a "catalyst" component to the crucible, but you do learn about it at some point.  The fact that it turns out to be something different from what the protagnist expects can (if implementented correctly) be a good plot device.  Again, I disagree with hulk, but I see his point.

Doesn't the Catalyst come in after the halfway point? IIRC it comes around the Thessia arc, or maybe before Rannoch, don't remember for sure.

Pretty sure its first mentioned when Shep and Liara visit the Council. 

[D24O]

essarr71 wrote...

Pretty sure its first mentioned when Shep and Liara visit the Council. 

Is it? I don't remember exactly, but I thought it came in later, after the Crucible was more complete. I'll have to take your word though.

[essarr71]

D24O wrote...

essarr71 wrote...

Pretty sure its first mentioned when Shep and Liara visit the Council. 

Is it? I don't remember exactly, but I thought it came in later, after the Crucible was more complete. I'll have to take your word though.

Yeup.  @~16:10

Modifié par essarr71, 18 août 2012 - 06:17 .

[Blueprotoss]

AresKeith wrote...

1. a crew/squadmates are not an army

How is that when the Normandy is an Alliance vessel that has an Aliiance leader while most of the crew are part of the Allinace.

AresKeith wrote... 

Cerberus definitly wasn't an Army in ME2

Yet they already had an army in ME1.

AresKeith wrote... 

2. Vigil and the Reaper IFF are not Doom's Day Devices

Vigil helped defeat Sovreign and the Reaper IFF helped defeat the Collectors.

[geceka]

Yes, the catalyst is mentioned during the first Council meeting right after Mars, pretty much the beginning of the game. It does not appear out of nowhere. That the catalyst turned out to be the Citadel (and later revealed to be, more precisely, an AI living on the Citadel) is a plot twist at best, but not a deus ex machina. 

Also, the Reapers and their invasion have always been the central antagonist in ME: In ME1, learning about how Sovereign pulls the strings, Saren is just an indoctrinated pawn and the Protheans, as well as countless others before them getting wiped out, is the main plot twist. In ME2, we learn that the Collectors work for the Reapers right in the first conversation with TIM at the beginning of the game. ME3 starts with the full-blown Reaper attack.

[chuckles471]

Blueprotoss wrote...

m2iCodeJockey wrote...

Hulk wrote...
...HULK DIDN'T FIND THE MOMENT TO BE DEUS EX MACHINA BECAUSE WE WERE QUITE LITERALLY SEARCHING FOR THE CATALYST FIGURE FOR THE ENTIRE GAME...

That was not correct.
ME1 "Stop Saren from launching a Reaper invasion"
ME2 "Stop the Collectors from collecting humans"
ME3 "Assemble a space army and Doom's Day Device to challenge the Reaper invasion"

At no time was I looking for a 3 1/2 foot tall avatar of an AI suffering from a recursion fault...

A conventional victory isn't possible agianst the Reapers in this cycle while you shouldn't forget that ME1 and ME2 was also about "assembling a space army and Doom's Day Device to challenge the Reaper invasion".  A real example of a Deus Ex Machina would be the winnings from the final dodgeball match to buy Globo Gym in Dodgeball: a true underdog story.

Isn't the real ending for Dodgeball, the studio didn't like the original ending.  The bad guys win and spend the whole of the credits rubbing it in the face of the good guys.  They didn't like the message of "try your hardest, you might not be good enough so don't try", that is why they called it "a true underdog story".  Is a better film with that ending and a better life lesson.  So yeah, they match up in that they were both written on the fly.

[Isichar]

Sorry Hulk but I disagree. The Catalyst is still a character introduced at the end. The player does not know what they catalyst is, and even though it 'could be anything' we are not really given any warning that he is coming, the catalyst is only referred to by its purpose to the citadel. And then there synthesis...

Catalyst+Synthesis=Deus ex machina

Interesting format btw.

[The Edge]

I respect his opinion, but I don't agree with the Hulk at all.

[Blueprotoss]

Isichar wrote...

Sorry Hulk but I disagree. The Catalyst is still a character introduced at the end. The player does not know what they catalyst is, and even though it 'could be anything' we are not really given any warning that he is coming, the catalyst is only referred to by its purpose to the citadel. And then there synthesis...

Catalyst+Synthesis=Deus ex machina

Interesting format btw.

Yet the Catalyst was talked about in the Council meeting at the beginning on ME3, which would contradict being a Deus Ex Machina.  We can also add that there was always a Reaper leader but we never knew the identity of it.  

[F4H bandicoot]

Blueprotoss wrote...

Isichar wrote...

Sorry Hulk but I disagree. The Catalyst is still a character introduced at the end. The player does not know what they catalyst is, and even though it 'could be anything' we are not really given any warning that he is coming, the catalyst is only referred to by its purpose to the citadel. And then there synthesis...

Catalyst+Synthesis=Deus ex machina

Interesting format btw.

Yet the Catalyst was talked about in the Council meeting at the beginning on ME3, which would contradict being a Deus Ex Machina.  We can also add that there was always a Reaper leader but we never knew the identity of it.  

This is never foreshadowed until thessia when the Vi hints there may be something else invovled but it's only ideas and whatnot.
The Reaper Leader should have been Harbinger. Much more consistent.

[m2iCodeJockey]

Hulk wrote...
...FIND THE CATALYST FIGURE...

zambot wrote...
I can see hulk's point... ...I forget when in ME3 you first learned there was a "catalyst" component...

He said "looking for a 'catalyst figure.'" You are never looking for a "figure."

Getting there to listen to that thing spout its stack overflow comes out of left field when you've played from the beginning of ME1.
If that thing >>controls<< the Reapers and the Citadel is >>part of it,<< there was no need for any of ME1 to occur.

[Blueprotoss]

chuckles471 wrote...

Isn't the real ending for Dodgeball, the studio didn't like the original ending. The bad guys win and spend the whole of the credits rubbing it in the face of the good guys. They didn't like the message of "try your hardest, you might not be good enough so don't try", that is why they called it "a true underdog story". Is a better film with that ending and a better life lesson. So yeah, they match up in that they were both written on the fly.

I don't know about the case for Dodgeball while its usually down to the studio or the director to change an ending. The "lucky" few get reshoots like GI Joe: Retailation when some of the test audiences wanted more time with Tatum and the Rock. We'll never know what happens until the endings are commented on by the developer.

[Blueprotoss]

F4H bandicoot wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

Isichar wrote...

Sorry Hulk but I disagree. The Catalyst is still a character introduced at the end. The player does not know what they catalyst is, and even though it 'could be anything' we are not really given any warning that he is coming, the catalyst is only referred to by its purpose to the citadel. And then there synthesis...

Catalyst+Synthesis=Deus ex machina

Interesting format btw.

Yet the Catalyst was talked about in the Council meeting at the beginning on ME3, which would contradict being a Deus Ex Machina.  We can also add that there was always a Reaper leader but we never knew the identity of it.  

This is never foreshadowed until thessia when the Vi hints there may be something else invovled but it's only ideas and whatnot.
The Reaper Leader should have been Harbinger. Much more consistent.

So you never saw the dreams in ME3 because the "kid" was surrounded by indoctrination attempts.  Originally people thought that Sovreign in ME1 and Harbinger in ME2 was the Reaper leader while they were never established as so.  How would Harbinger be the leader when he chose not to kill Shepard and being one of the oldest Reapers doesn't make him automatically into the leader.

[F4H bandicoot]

Blueprotoss wrote...

F4H bandicoot wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

Isichar wrote...

Sorry Hulk but I disagree. The Catalyst is still a character introduced at the end. The player does not know what they catalyst is, and even though it 'could be anything' we are not really given any warning that he is coming, the catalyst is only referred to by its purpose to the citadel. And then there synthesis...

Catalyst+Synthesis=Deus ex machina

Interesting format btw.

Yet the Catalyst was talked about in the Council meeting at the beginning on ME3, which would contradict being a Deus Ex Machina.  We can also add that there was always a Reaper leader but we never knew the identity of it.  

This is never foreshadowed until thessia when the Vi hints there may be something else invovled but it's only ideas and whatnot.
The Reaper Leader should have been Harbinger. Much more consistent.

So you never saw the dreams in ME3 because the "kid" was surrounded by indoctrination attempts.  Originally people thought that Sovreign in ME1 and Harbinger in ME2 was the Reaper leader while they were never established as so.  How would Harbinger be the leader when he chose not to kill Shepard and being one of the oldest Reapers doesn't make him automatically into the leader.

The dreams represent PTSD. As more people dies the amount of shadows increases. That's not indoctrination.
I never said HArbinger was the Reaper leader, I said he should have been for plot consistency, the vast majority of people believe he is anyway, due to his antics in ME2 and he fact he is the one who 'Holograms' you in Arrival.
Harbinger being their leader is much more beliveable than a 'Character' introduced in the last 5 minutes is.

[Blueprotoss]

F4H bandicoot wrote...

The dreams represent PTSD. As more people dies the amount of shadows increases. That's not indoctrination.
I never said HArbinger was the Reaper leader, I said he should have been for plot consistency, the vast majority of people believe he is anyway, due to his antics in ME2 and he fact he is the one who 'Holograms' you in Arrival.
Harbinger being their leader is much more beliveable than a 'Character' introduced in the last 5 minutes is.

If the dreams only represented PTSD then the signs of indoctrination like oily shadows and Reaper growls wouldn't overlap the stress even when the strongest of minds can break over fatigue.  The plot is consistent while the what and who was never named as the Reaper leader until ME3.  How is Harbinger move believable when he really do nothing to be labeled as a leader.

[GreyLycanTrope]

Blueprotoss wrote...

How is that when the Normandy is an Alliance vessel that has an Aliiance leader while most of the crew are part of the Allinace.

1 ship =/= a bloody fleet
a ground team of 7-14 people isn't an army, it isn't even a full platoon.

Yet they already had an army in ME1.

They had a few military operatives running secret experiments, more of a security force then a standing army. If they had an army they would have used it against the collectors.

Vigil helped defeat Sovreign and the Reaper IFF helped defeat the Collectors.

They helped but they weren't weapons of mass destruction, or weapons at all for that matter.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 18 août 2012 - 11:37 .

[ld1449]

m2iCodeJockey wrote...

Hulk wrote...
...HULK DIDN'T FIND THE MOMENT TO BE DEUS EX MACHINA BECAUSE WE WERE QUITE LITERALLY SEARCHING FOR THE CATALYST FIGURE FOR THE ENTIRE GAME...

That was not correct.
ME1 "Stop Saren from launching a Reaper invasion"
ME2 "Stop the Collectors from collecting humans"
ME3 "Assemble a space army and Doom's Day Device to challenge the Reaper invasion"

At no time was I looking for a 3 1/2 foot tall avatar of an AI suffering from a recursion fault...

Again, he has not played ME1 or ME2 and forms a half informed opinion.

Because of that, to me, he comes off as wholly ignorant because Mass effect 3 does support its own narrative. Taken as a stand alone it would work, taken in the context of the previous two games the picture changes and that's when you see all the lore breaking things it did.

[F4H bandicoot]

Blueprotoss wrote...

F4H bandicoot wrote...

The dreams represent PTSD. As more people dies the amount of shadows increases. That's not indoctrination.
I never said HArbinger was the Reaper leader, I said he should have been for plot consistency, the vast majority of people believe he is anyway, due to his antics in ME2 and he fact he is the one who 'Holograms' you in Arrival.
Harbinger being their leader is much more beliveable than a 'Character' introduced in the last 5 minutes is.

If the dreams only represented PTSD then the signs of indoctrination like oily shadows and Reaper growls wouldn't overlap the stress even when the strongest of minds can break over fatigue.  The plot is consistent while the what and who was never named as the Reaper leader until ME3.  How is Harbinger move believable when he really do nothing to be labeled as a leader.

How is a the catalyst, a being we here nothing about, know nothing about, is not talked about at all more appropriate than Harbinger. If you Remove the Catalyst, Harby is the Reaper who looks most like the Reaper leader, heck, he leads the Reapers into the Galaxy, he talks to shep in Arrival about the Reapers coming, who else would do such a thing??
The Kid isn't even the Catalyst if that's what you're getting at, the Kid represents all the people shep can't save.

[ticklefist]

This thread was created yesterday by the exact same POS human being that created this exact same post 2 weeks ago.

http://social.biowar.../index/13547823

****ing. Troll.

Modifié par ticklefist, 18 août 2012 - 11:05 .