329 réponses à ce sujet

[LiarasShield]

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?

I may have read this wrong but were you saying that the catalyst was trying to use synthesis and then the reapers rebelled against him  if something like this was introduced in me2 or me1 and had a good backstory written for it and it actually showed the reapers disobeying the catalyst and doing their own thing then perhaps it would be more bearable

It is because the catalyst never had a hint to existence kinda ruined the point of the reapers being powerful unique individuals

And many other concepts is what makes him completely a nuisance for me

[Jamie9]

Modifié par Jamie9, 23 août 2012 - 01:33 .

[Batnat]

You know what...there IS in fact a way that I´d really be ok with the Catalyst and by extension the Crucible (because I find that thing just as stupid). And that would be if it turns out to be a trap set by the Reapers. I don´t even care that it would mean we were concentrating the whole game on a red herring, it´s not like I feel more accomplishment now.

Even if it would end up in a total loss of the cycle I´d be down with it, the galaxy being stupid enough to pour all recources into some unknown superduper weapon screams for punishment.
That way I could at least respect the Reapers again, nifty little bastards..."We´ll find another way." ...yeah, they sure did!

And before the Anti-IT people come howling again...the Catalyst/Crucible being a trap doesn´t need to involve IT...not that I personally would mind.

Modifié par Batnat, 23 août 2012 - 01:34 .

[Jamie9]

Oransel wrote...

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?

Yes. If the author truly thinks that the ending fits.

Like I said, if we can convince the author that the story is bad, then they can change it. But an author shouldn't be forced to do anything.

I am somewhat of a writer myself, so I guess that plays into this. (though I always plan the ending first)

[GreyLycanTrope]

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?

He was forshadowed on Thessia, rather poorly, remember that bit about "the master of the pattern". If they wanted to implament him they would need to have changed much of the dialogue given by Harby and Sovereign, back in the other two games he just doesn't fit.
The final choices are a seperate issue from character development, this is a narrative problem, the synthetics organic conflict should have been much more prevailiant in the story then it was, geth/quarian peace should also not have been possible, EDI's motivations should have been framed to be more suspect to help validate the ending.

[008Zulu]

The Catalyst storyline was the replacement for the original ending to the trilogy.

[tyrvas]

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, it would'nt, 

with low EMS the Catalyst says, "what are you doing here?", followed by "the reapers are mine!"

with high EMS the Catalyst says, "wake up", followed by "perhaps... I control them".

the Catalyst does not care about you, it only cares if the crucible is able to give synthesis as an option.

[MattFini]

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?

Sure.

It probably would've had to have been even earlier than Thessia, and the character would've had to have been expanded upon and fleshed out considerably. 

If the Reapers were rebelling against him (which would've actually fit thematically), then the whole thing would've worked better.  Mind you, it would've still been too convenient ("oh hey, thank God you were here, Catalyst, or we never would've won"), but it would've sat better.

I like this thread because it illustrates my ultimate issue with the ending:  Shepard just submits to the reaper king.

Another way it would've worked (for me) is that you make it to the Citadel when the Crucible docks and somehow you figure out that you can either unleash the energy to destory or control them (your choice).  While you're obtaining this information, the Catalyst shows up and actively tries to stop you from making a choice (let's say he just wants the reapers to go on reaping).

If you made your choice IN SPITE of him, I also would've accepted this ending more because you'd be acting in direct opposition to him.

But they way in that it's presented now (in original and EC) is just way too passive of an ending to the trilogy.

I believe it's the fundamental reason the endings fail, before you even dive into functionality, space magic and all that ...

Modifié par MattFini, 23 août 2012 - 01:40 .

[Oransel]

Jamie9 wrote...

Yes. If the author truly thinks that the ending fits.

Like I said, if we can convince the author that the story is bad, then they can change it. But an author shouldn't be forced to do anything.

I am somewhat of a writer myself, so I guess that plays into this. (though I always plan the ending first)

I absolutely dissagree with you, since we are talking about commercial art, but this thread should not become a battle on this ground.

[Jamie9]

The Reapers are the most inconsistent entity in the Mass Effect universe (Cerberus is 2nd).

In the first game, one Reaper can take entire fleets. It hates all life and just wishes to see it eradicated.

In the second game, the Reapers play shadow puppets. But now they just want to reproduce. They are actually impressed by humanity, and have decided to make the Reaper out of them.

In the third game, an army of Reapers can be somewhat held back by fleets (so to pro-conventional victors, they ALREADY buffed our fleets, Thanix cannons be damned). But their actual strengths vary. Sometimes an entire fleet is needed to take down a Destroyer, other times a Thresher Worm, other times a Cain.

Also, the Reapers now work for the Catalyst to stop synthetics from wiping out organics.

It's blatantly obvious they didn't plan out the Reapers back in ME1. THAT is why ME3 fell apart. They didn't plan ahead.

[Eterna]

I like the Catalyst. People don't like the Catalyst because he presents 3 (4) options that require players Shepards to get their hands dirty with no get out of jail free card that they're spoon fed at every major decision.

That's why you see so much "My Shepard had to give up everything he/she believed in and it's thematically revolting! QQ"

[Rovay]

LiarasShield wrote...

I may have read this wrong but were you saying that the catalyst was trying to use synthesis and then the reapers rebelled against him  if something like this was introduced in me2 or me1 and had a good backstory written for it and it actually showed the reapers disobeying the catalyst and doing their own thing then perhaps it would be more bearable

Yeah, that's the main point of the idea I thought of. 

[LiarasShield]

but yeah since the catalyst wasn't implemented in small proportions through the other games and his whole the created rebel against their creators wasn't more focused upon it just seems out of place or just done wrong I don't know not really trying to throw insults but


Never before have I seen a hologram in game basiclly turn some of the plot or the story on its head like this one has

[Oransel]

Eterna5 wrote...

I like the Catalyst. People don't like the Catalyst because he presents 3 (4) options that require players Shepards to get their hands dirty with no get out of jail free card that they're spoon fed at every major decision.

That's why you see so much "My Shepard had to give up everything he/she believed in and it's thematically revolting! QQ"

You like Catalyst because you are a troll like him. Problem?

[Eterna]

Oransel wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

I like the Catalyst. People don't like the Catalyst because he presents 3 (4) options that require players Shepards to get their hands dirty with no get out of jail free card that they're spoon fed at every major decision.

That's why you see so much "My Shepard had to give up everything he/she believed in and it's thematically revolting! QQ"

You like Catalyst because you are a troll like him. Problem?

I like how you label people you disagree with as trolls. You must be a fun person to converse with.

"I don't agree with you"
"TROLL PROBLEM LOL"

[LiarasShield]

Eterna5 wrote...

Oransel wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

I like the Catalyst. People don't like the Catalyst because he presents 3 (4) options that require players Shepards to get their hands dirty with no get out of jail free card that they're spoon fed at every major decision.

That's why you see so much "My Shepard had to give up everything he/she believed in and it's thematically revolting! QQ"

You like Catalyst because you are a troll like him. Problem?

I like how you label people you disagree with as trolls. You must be a fun person to converse with.

"I don't agree with you"
"TROLL PROBLEM LOL"

But the catalyst used the reapers to burn your world and the rest of the galaxies and the previous cycles before it why would you believe what it says and what it offers or even be willing to talk to someone who is commiting genocide on your race and is burning your home?

Modifié par LiarasShield, 23 août 2012 - 01:47 .

[MattFini]

Jamie9 wrote...

It's blatantly obvious they didn't plan out the Reapers back in ME1. THAT is why ME3 fell apart. They didn't plan ahead.

And that's why the whole "art" argument doesn't work for me.

This wasn't a trilogy envisioned by one person, but rather a story cobbled together by many. And how many times was ME3's ending changed, exactly?  

It's really hard for me to believe that this (the ending that we have) was any kind of legitimate vision for the trilogy's end.  Rather, it smacks of last-minute compromise, or "good enough" mentality.

[Cobalt2113]

Now, here's my question. If Shepard had survived at the end and people had gotten all the things they wanted like reunions, blue babies or whatever, would anyone be hating on the Catalyst at all?

[LiarasShield]

Cobalt2113 wrote...

Now, here's my question. If Shepard had survived at the end and people had gotten all the things they wanted like reunions, blue babies or whatever, would anyone be hating on the Catalyst at all?

Who knows maybe maybe not but this is a plothole that isn't easy to let go off and if the endings really did cater to everyone both happy and sad and bittersweet maybe people wouldn't have looked even deeper for issues that affect the story

[Eterna]

LiarasShield wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

Oransel wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

I like the Catalyst. People don't like the Catalyst because he presents 3 (4) options that require players Shepards to get their hands dirty with no get out of jail free card that they're spoon fed at every major decision.

That's why you see so much "My Shepard had to give up everything he/she believed in and it's thematically revolting! QQ"

You like Catalyst because you are a troll like him. Problem?

I like how you label people you disagree with as trolls. You must be a fun person to converse with.

"I don't agree with you"
"TROLL PROBLEM LOL"

But the catalyst used the reapers to burn your world and the rest of the galaxies and the previous cycles before it why would you believe what it says and what it offers or even be willing to talk to someone who is commiting genocide on your race and is burning your home?

Does Shepard have a choice at that point?

[LiarasShield]

Eterna5 wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

Oransel wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

I like the Catalyst. People don't like the Catalyst because he presents 3 (4) options that require players Shepards to get their hands dirty with no get out of jail free card that they're spoon fed at every major decision.

That's why you see so much "My Shepard had to give up everything he/she believed in and it's thematically revolting! QQ"

You like Catalyst because you are a troll like him. Problem?

I like how you label people you disagree with as trolls. You must be a fun person to converse with.

"I don't agree with you"
"TROLL PROBLEM LOL"

But the catalyst used the reapers to burn your world and the rest of the galaxies and the previous cycles before it why would you believe what it says and what it offers or even be willing to talk to someone who is commiting genocide on your race and is burning your home?

Does Shepard have a choice at that point?

Well yeah now in refuse thank god but thats not the point of my question you're deflecting my question with another question why would you be willing to speak to the catalyst at all?

[Applepie_Svk]

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!!!"

Baronesa wrote...

inb4 the reapers are poor victims

 

inb4 Dreman...

[Eterna]

LiarasShield wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

Oransel wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

I like the Catalyst. People don't like the Catalyst because he presents 3 (4) options that require players Shepards to get their hands dirty with no get out of jail free card that they're spoon fed at every major decision.

That's why you see so much "My Shepard had to give up everything he/she believed in and it's thematically revolting! QQ"

You like Catalyst because you are a troll like him. Problem?

I like how you label people you disagree with as trolls. You must be a fun person to converse with.

"I don't agree with you"
"TROLL PROBLEM LOL"

But the catalyst used the reapers to burn your world and the rest of the galaxies and the previous cycles before it why would you believe what it says and what it offers or even be willing to talk to someone who is commiting genocide on your race and is burning your home?

Does Shepard have a choice at that point?

Well yeah now in refuse thank god but thats not the point of my question you're deflecting my question with another question why would you be willing to speak to the catalyst at all?

Because if you don't everyone dies.

[Oransel]

Cobalt2113 wrote...

Now, here's my question. If Shepard had survived at the end and people had gotten all the things they wanted like reunions, blue babies or whatever, would anyone be hating on the Catalyst at all?

I would have been hating him. "Never compromise. Even in the face of the Armageddon, never compromise".

[LiarasShield]

Eterna5 wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

Oransel wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

I like the Catalyst. People don't like the Catalyst because he presents 3 (4) options that require players Shepards to get their hands dirty with no get out of jail free card that they're spoon fed at every major decision.

That's why you see so much "My Shepard had to give up everything he/she believed in and it's thematically revolting! QQ"

You like Catalyst because you are a troll like him. Problem?

I like how you label people you disagree with as trolls. You must be a fun person to converse with.

"I don't agree with you"
"TROLL PROBLEM LOL"

But the catalyst used the reapers to burn your world and the rest of the galaxies and the previous cycles before it why would you believe what it says and what it offers or even be willing to talk to someone who is commiting genocide on your race and is burning your home?

Does Shepard have a choice at that point?

Well yeah now in refuse thank god but thats not the point of my question you're deflecting my question with another question why would you be willing to speak to the catalyst at all?

Because if you don't everyone dies.

But if the reapers live then they may continue to do mass genocide and destroy future cycles and yet still everyone would die?