329 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

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

The point is that they wouldn't do that anymore.

[Eterna]

LiarasShield wrote...

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?

That's your headcannon, not mine. My Shepard AI uses them for good, they become benevolent peacekeepers. 

[Ieldra]

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"

That's certainly true. Nonetheless, making the leader of the antagonists also be the one who explains your final choice to you wasn't the best idea Bioware's writers ever had. It requires an immense amount of emotional detachment to get comfortable with the idea that the Catalyst, as an AI, doesn't play to win but plays to complete an objective, in a completely neutral and amoral way, and as such isn't your standard antagonist, and that it can't be measured by human standards of morality because it isn't equipped to see those as valid.

I like the final choice and its outcomes, but the Catalyst remains a problem, not just because it explains our final choice, but also because it comes across as a pseudo-divinity with primary agency in the ending, starting with levitating Shepard up to its platform. The symbolism is galling to say the least.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 23 août 2012 - 01:55 .

[GreyLycanTrope]

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'd be less angry since I wouldn't be forced to compromise my established story, his esitance would have been more tolerable, but if he was  implemented in the same way he is now I'd still be going "So I know he was there for exposition, but where the hell did that guy come from?"

Same issue I have with ME2, alright we blew up the collector base but when did Shepard figure out Harbinger was a Reaper? It's a narrative issue but one the doesn't impede my options.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 23 août 2012 - 01:59 .

[LiarasShield]

Xilizhra wrote...

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

The point is that they wouldn't do that anymore.

But the catalyst you know the one using the reapers to burn your home what  makes you think that they wouldn't do that anymore

Espically with a new catalyst ai may get the wrongs notions of protecting and misuse the reapers


Also with the old catalyst programing mixing in with shepards dna to cause synthesis throughtout the galaxy their may be no indiviudality left or anything that made you you maybe be gone is it better to die the same as everyone else or better to remain yourself?

[Fixers0]

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"

I like how you have no objective grounds to base your statement on.

Not only do i dislike to catalyst on moral grounds, but i firmly believe that it has no narative legitimacy at all.

[KiwiQuiche]

Yeah, I'm of the opinion he's just a deranged lunatic who made the Reapers look like a pack of retards in ME3.

[Cobalt2113]

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?

I really don't wanna seem like I'm defending the Catalyst because frankly, I'm pretty ambivalent about him as a character, but I'd like to have a go at that question.

I'd talk to him because he presents himself as a logical being. He is an AI, after all, even if he is doing great evil, he thinks in logical patterns. But the main reason I'd talk to him is because he is committing genocide on my race and burning my home. And I need him to stop. At least trying to convince him seems like a decent first step. Especially since that what's I've been doing with bad guys since ME 1.

[LiarasShield]

Cobalt2113 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?

I really don't wanna seem like I'm defending the Catalyst because frankly, I'm pretty ambivalent about him as a character, but I'd like to have a go at that question.

I'd talk to him because he presents himself as a logical being. He is an AI, after all, even if he is doing great evil, he thinks in logical patterns. But the main reason I'd talk to him is because he is committing genocide on my race and burning my home. And I need him to stop. At least trying to convince him seems like a decent first step. Especially since that what's I've been doing with bad guys since ME 1.

Well that was a very nice response ^^


But now my counter question would be but what if he isn't reasonable or doesn't want to listen to you like harbinger and soverign did?

Modifié par LiarasShield, 23 août 2012 - 02:04 .

[LiarasShield]

If you don't have a answer that is fine I understand I'm not gonna try to put you on the spot

[aj2070]

 I dislike the Catalyst for all of the above reasons.  The choices, for "victory" even after the Extended Cut, are on the reaper's terms.  How is that a victory?

Oh and Sheppard7, "...but...but...It's artistic integrity...":devil:

Modifié par aj2070, 23 août 2012 - 02:12 .

[garf]

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.

Nope can't agree. Won't argue that they can write the book how they like. but I have the right to relegate the book right back the the used bookstore (or the paper recycling bin if I can't be arsed to make the trip downtown) and drop that author from my list of favourites.

and what we are talking about here is our rationale for doing the gaming industry equivalent of just that. Which any gaming industry 'artist' ignores at the risk of following the paradigm to the point of starving in a garret.  (What would be the modern equivalent of a garret anyway?)

[Cobalt2113]

LiarasShield wrote...


Well that was a very nice response ^^


But now my counter question would be but what if he isn't reasonable or doesn't want to listen to you like harbinger and soverign did?

Thanks ^^

Well, on my first playthrough I actually did expect it to be a bit more like that. And was somewhat surprised that he just rolls over and goes 'here you go, this does this, that does that, do what you like". But then my Shepard was pretty badass so I just chalked it up to that.

From Shepard's POV. She was pretty torn up at that point. PLan B would've been 'keep shooting things till you die'.

Modifié par Cobalt2113, 23 août 2012 - 02:16 .

[LiarasShield]

If the regular reapers like soverign and harbinger wouldn't listen why would the reaper collective be anymore indulgent to shepard wishes espically when it is enjoying seeing your races suffer by having the reapers destroy or harvest them?

Either the catalyst is lying about really being able to control the reapers or the options it offers you have more negative side effects then we could imagine

Modifié par LiarasShield, 23 août 2012 - 02:18 .

[Xilizhra]

LiarasShield wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

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

The point is that they wouldn't do that anymore.

But the catalyst you know the one using the reapers to burn your home what  makes you think that they wouldn't do that anymore

Espically with a new catalyst ai may get the wrongs notions of protecting and misuse the reapers


Also with the old catalyst programing mixing in with shepards dna to cause synthesis throughtout the galaxy their may be no indiviudality left or anything that made you you maybe be gone is it better to die the same as everyone else or better to remain yourself?

I would gladly give that up to give peace and prosperity to the galaxy as a whole.

[thefallen2far]

If you change the lead writer, it's not the writer's story anymore. It's another assigned and less talented writer's ending. You know. Fan fiction.
If Drew defended it, i'd have a semblence of respect for it.

But I will admit, it's reminiscent of the Architect from Matrix.. but whereas Neo denied the plot device, Shepard rolled over and relaxed to accept the Catalyst's nonsense.

[Cobalt2113]

LiarasShield wrote...

If the regular reapers like soverign and harbinger wouldn't listen why would the reaper collective be anymore indulgent to shepard wishes espically when it is enjoying seeing your races suffer by having the reapers destroy or harvest them?

As far as that goes I suppose I just accepted his word when he said that he wanted the cycle to changed as well. That his solution wasn't working.

If he was as arrogant as sovereign or harbinger it would be petty obvious. They talk to you like you're an ant.

[LiarasShield]

Xilizhra wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

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

The point is that they wouldn't do that anymore.

But the catalyst you know the one using the reapers to burn your home what  makes you think that they wouldn't do that anymore

Espically with a new catalyst ai may get the wrongs notions of protecting and misuse the reapers


Also with the old catalyst programing mixing in with shepards dna to cause synthesis throughtout the galaxy their may be no indiviudality left or anything that made you you maybe be gone is it better to die the same as everyone else or better to remain yourself?

I would gladly give that up to give peace and prosperity to the galaxy as a whole.

So for peace to exist you would gladly give up your mind and everything that made you a person that is something I would never ask of anyone else?

[Cobalt2113]

LiarasShield wrote...


Either the catalyst is lying about really being able to control the reapers or the options it offers you have more negative side effects then we could imagine

I don't think that's necessarily true.

Modifié par Cobalt2113, 23 août 2012 - 02:22 .

[LiarasShield]

Cobalt2113 wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

If the regular reapers like soverign and harbinger wouldn't listen why would the reaper collective be anymore indulgent to shepard wishes espically when it is enjoying seeing your races suffer by having the reapers destroy or harvest them?

As far as that goes I suppose I just accepted his word when he said that he wanted the cycle to changed as well. That his solution wasn't working.

If he was as arrogant as sovereign or harbinger it would be petty obvious. They talk to you like you're an ant.

Who says the head reaper has to be arrogant it could be nice and kind and pretend to be understaning to lead you down the path of its three choices

[garf]

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"

That is an insulting dissmisal of my point point of view. I agree with those who label this a troll post NOT because you disagree with me. but because you shoehorn meaning into my position and belittle that opinion based on your own imposed interpretation. It makes your post no better than a statment by Colin Moriarity or any of the other IGNorant.

If you actually care to discuss your differences you'll come up with a better word choice.  as to why you think previous game play was always a 'get out of jail free card' until then ... well... I'm probably giving this post more attention than it deserves.

[Jamie9]

garf wrote...
Nope can't agree. Won't argue that they can write the book how they like. but I have the right to relegate the book right back the the used bookstore (or the paper recycling bin if I can't be arsed to make the trip downtown) and drop that author from my list of favourites.

and what we are talking about here is our rationale for doing the gaming industry equivalent of just that. Which any gaming industry 'artist' ignores at the risk of following the paradigm to the point of starving in a garret.  (What would be the modern equivalent of a garret anyway?)

Of course you can choose to do that. I didn't suggest you couldn't.

That's the system designed to keep high quality products. The bad ones don't get bought and the good ones do (in theory).

The point being that when writing a story, you should be doing it because you have a story to tell, not because you want to make money (that's a nice bonus). Since you're not doing it for money, you're not going to change your story if you think it is good.

Presumably, Casey and Hudson think the ending is good.

[LiarasShield]

Also compromising with the enemy or doing what the enemy tells you to do really does destroy any meaning of achievement

[saracen16]

Ieldra2 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"

That's certainly true. Nonetheless, making the leader of the antagonists also be the one who explains your final choice to you wasn't the best idea Bioware's writers ever had. It requires an immense amount of emotional detachment to get comfortable with the idea that the Catalyst, as an AI, doesn't play to win but plays to complete an objective, in a completely neutral and amoral way, and as such isn't your standard antagonist, and that it can't be measured by human standards of morality because it isn't equipped to see those as valid.

I like the final choice and its outcomes, but the Catalyst remains a problem, not just because it explains our final choice, but also because it comes across as a pseudo-divinity with primary agency in the ending, starting with levitating Shepard up to its platform. The symbolism is galling to say the least.

The closest analogy I can get to towards the end is that the Illusive Man was right: the universe is not as black and white as we think because there's plenty of room for different shades of grey. It's more like Cerberus is the Emperor Palpatine and the Reapers are the Darth Vader, their moral ambiguities or certainties made clear at the very end. This also hearkens to Deus Ex Invisible War, where you fight one faction most of the game only to be able to side with it at the very end (the Templars, for those who need a memory check).

It's refreshing to have another not-so-clear-cut antagonist at the end. The whole good vs. evil dichotomy was getting tiresome.