329 réponses à ce sujet

[LiarasShield]

Because he has been using the reapers to destroy our entire galaxy the entire time of mass effect 3 even used the reapers to destroy the protheans and whatever other advanced races from the last cycle


So it is extremely hard for shepard to even put up with the reapers leader let alone talk to it and pick one of its choices also knowing that the reapers leader is giving me its choices makes me feel like it will only really benefit the reapers in the long run and only do harm to us and it ruins any sense of accomplishment of the players knowing that you have to compromise with the leader of the reapers or compromise with the enemy just to hopefully beat them

Another annoying itch in the back of my throat is that in mass effect 1 or 2 their is not hint or any idea to the catalyst existence at all and to me personally soverign and harbinger made the reapers seem like powerful united individuals here to destroy us or that soverign and harbinger were powerful leaders of the reapers.

But the catalyst pretty much destroys or ruins that since he controls all the reapers and is the reaper collective.

[The Angry One]

inb4 "But teh Catalyst is flawed AI! I headcanoned that it's shackled to feel better about working with it and will now post this as fact!!!"

[Baronesa]

inb4 the reapers are poor victims

[Icinix]

Will never be ok with it, because quite frankly, it was just a plain annoying character....and I spent hundreds of hours with Miss "Hey! Listen!"

[Chaotic-Fusion]

Yep.

The stream of reaper apologists on this forum lately has been disheartening.

[GreyLycanTrope]

One of the reasons destroy is the most popular option I think. But yeah the whole catalyst thing was thought up for ME3 solely, they didn't plan ahead with the concept.

[LiarasShield]

I just don't understand how so many people can agree with the catalyst after all the harm he has done with the reapers O_O?


That and the catalyst has no trail of existence in the other me games U_u

Modifié par LiarasShield, 23 août 2012 - 01:18 .

[Cobalt2113]

I don't like him any more or less than the architect from The Matrix.

You're not supposed to like him, basically he's there for the purpose of exposition. To give you the information you need to make the final choice. I can't really say I hate him because... well I guess I don't really see the point in hating an emotionless AI.

[WindfishDude]

It's like if Dorothy never revealed the Man Behind the Curtain, and ended up agreeing with the holographic, giant Wizard head.

That's no way to end a story.

edit: ^^@ User above me: The Architect is one of the worst and most contrived characters and plot-devices in the Matrix sequels (I don't hate the sequels btw but they are, at best, good action movies, and at worst, back-to-back franchise machines, made to pump out toys and videogames).

Comparing The Architect to the Catalyst is just proving the hatred for the character.

Modifié par WindfishDude, 23 août 2012 - 01:26 .

[comrade gando]

The Angry One wrote...

inb4 "But teh Catalyst is flawed AI! I headcanoned that it's shackled to feel better about working with it and will now post this as fact!!!"

So true. "its a shackled AI dummy thats why its so stupid" ok where is that ever indicated "lalalala I cant hear you"

[Icinix]

Cobalt2113 wrote...

I don't like him any more or less than the architect from The Matrix.

You're not supposed to like him, basically he's there for the purpose of exposition. To give you the information you need to make the final choice. I can't really say I hate him because... well I guess I don't really see the point in hating an emotionless AI.

Outside of game lore / story.

I hate his presentation, dialogue and voice acting.

He had no place as a role in a C grade straight to VHS horror film yet alone a AAA video game release.

Nicholas Cage acting as a fire hydrant at the end would have been better.

[Oransel]

Cobalt2113 wrote...

I don't like him any more or less than the architect from The Matrix.

You're not supposed to like him, basically he's there for the purpose of exposition. To give you the information you need to make the final choice. I can't really say I hate him because... well I guess I don't really see the point in hating an emotionless AI.

There should have never been a final choice. You had enough of the choices already, you should have just seen what they conclude into like in Bioshock 2.

[AngryFrozenWater]

To me it is because the brat never made sense. The reapers on the other hand started off great. However, the more I've learned from the brat, the less it all made sense. Especially its hypothetical threat and its attempts to counter it. This uninvited guest has the attitude of a god, as if its maniacal genocidal cyclical "ascension through destruction" reproduction method was not designed to keep it on top of the food chain. Ghehe. At least there was the destroy option to make them disappear.

[BatmanPWNS]

Well his voice acting sucks and his commited a trillion genocides. You got to be crazy to support or like that.

[GreyLycanTrope]

Cobalt2113 wrote...

I don't like him any more or less than the architect from The Matrix.

You're not supposed to like him, basically he's there for the purpose of exposition. To give you the information you need to make the final choice. I can't really say I hate him because... well I guess I don't really see the point in hating an emotionless AI.

In game I don't hate him, he's essentially the villian, the one responsible for the death and destruction, I get that I'm not supposed to like him.
Outside of that he's just a poorly concieved and implemented character. That's what I hate.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 23 août 2012 - 01:25 .

[LiarasShield]

Oransel wrote...

Cobalt2113 wrote...

I don't like him any more or less than the architect from The Matrix.

You're not supposed to like him, basically he's there for the purpose of exposition. To give you the information you need to make the final choice. I can't really say I hate him because... well I guess I don't really see the point in hating an emotionless AI.

There should have never been a final choice. You had enough of the choices already, you should have just seen what they conclude into like in Bioshock 2.

Too bad they didn't make a bioshock 3 would've loved playing as big sister ^_-

[Jamie9]

I would rather have what the author wants. If the author realises that the concept is flawed, and changes it themselves, then that's okay (The Extended Cut).

But I think stories belong to the author(s). I'd rather have their terrible original vision than a great vision they were forced to put in.

[Icinix]

Oransel wrote...

Cobalt2113 wrote...

I don't like him any more or less than the architect from The Matrix.

You're not supposed to like him, basically he's there for the purpose of exposition. To give you the information you need to make the final choice. I can't really say I hate him because... well I guess I don't really see the point in hating an emotionless AI.

There should have never been a final choice. You had enough of the choices already, you should have just seen what they conclude into like in Bioshock 2.

Indeed - this would have been better - rather than a final, redundant, pointless choice, ram one down our throats and give us a 10 - 15 minutes of character cutscenes in engine showing how our choices through the game affected the Mass Effect universe.

The choices we made DURING ME1 - 3 were what mattered - the final choice and the catalyst and the whole lot - I honestly don't think it should ever have been there.

[Cobalt2113]

Oransel wrote...


There should have never been a final choice. You had enough of the choices already, you should have just seen what they conclude into like in Bioshock 2.

I don't disagree that that would have been cool.

But that's really a different issue.

[Rovay]

Okay then. Serious question here, mostly meant to satisfy my curiosity. If Catalyst was introduced earlier (let's say Thessia) and had parts of its backstory rewritten ( for example, it created the Reapers for the purpose of achieving Synthesis but its creations betrayed it eventually and now wants to stop them), would it make it and final choices better?

[sheppard7]

NB4 "But... but... but... it's artistic integrity."

[EnvyTB075]

Rovay wrote...

Okay then. Serious question here, mostly meant to satisfy my curiosity. If Catalyst was introduced earlier (let's say Thessia) and had parts of its backstory rewritten ( for example, it created the Reapers for the purpose of achieving Synthesis but its creations betrayed it eventually and now wants to stop them), would it make it and final choices better?

No, but it would've introduced a new reason to fight, to stop synthesis.

[Oransel]

Jamie9 wrote...

I would rather have what the author wants. If the author realises that the concept is flawed, and changes it themselves, then that's okay (The Extended Cut).

But I think stories belong to the author(s). I'd rather have their terrible original vision than a great vision they were forced to put in.

So you prefer author's turd to the fan-demanded cake?

[Icinix]

Rovay wrote...

Okay then. Serious question here, mostly meant to satisfy my curiosity. If Catalyst was introduced earlier (let's say Thessia) and had parts of its backstory rewritten ( for example, it created the Reapers for the purpose of achieving Synthesis but its creations betrayed it eventually and now wants to stop them), would it make it and final choices better?

Probably would have actually.

Even just a line with Sovereign along the lines of "We work towards a final end organic life refuses to grasp" blah blah could have ended up doing wonders for the Catalyst etc.

But honestly - the presentation, dialogue etc are what kills it. Its actually laugh out loud funny in its presentation and fourth wall smashing.

Its like going to the opera and hearing a man read 'The Prayer' in mono-tone.