509 réponses à ce sujet

[GhostShadow115]

CronoDragoon wrote...

GhostShadow115 wrote...

The thing that bugs me is.:
ME 1: Reapers are Godlike "things" that are eons old.
ME 2: You can make Reapers from humans, hence the Human Reaper that looks human... because it has liquified humans in it...?
(Although other species too, but if you listen to what Harbinger says in combat he does say why some species aren't good enough to make a Reaper.)
ME 3 Original AND Extended ending: Everything can become any kind of Reaper... (Alright)
ME 3 Leviathan: Everything becomes a Reaper formed in Harbingers image.

Alright someone please explain this to me, I'm truly lost.....

The shell is always the same. The core of the Reaper is shaped in the form of the race liquified. Also, I believe I remember that the Reapers only select one race to make a Capital ship each cycle, and the other races get turned into lesser Reapers. Someone feel free to correct me here.

.........................................................................................................................
Wait..... that...... makes some sense...... why do you make sense.....?

[Tocquevillain]

FIN-Olmi wrote...

Why is it so hard for people to understand that catalyst is an AI built by leviathans to act as a peace keeper between "lesser" organics and synthetics. For example if it worked as intended in current ME cycle it would have been resolving the geth and quarian war so quarians wouldn't had had to go into exile in the first place.
But the catalyst/AI went insane, built harbinger (into the image of it's creators. The leviathans) and slaughtered the leviathans. And so began the cycle. It want's to raise organics in a way that pleases it and then harvest them building a new reaper.
So I think people are thinking the catalyst AI too difficult. It is not some shiny deity boy with a master plan which is too complex/confilcting/artistically integrate. NO. It is simply an crazy rogue AI. People complain "there is no logic in what the catalyst says" Well no **** Sherlock. Why do you search for logic when there is none. Was there supposed to be any reason in the words of a lunatic who believes people are saved by killing and melting them?

Well, there is reason. As Leviathan said in the DLC, the A.I. is still completing its goal, just in a way that was not intended by its creators.

[AlanC9]

CronoDragoon wrote...
 Also, I believe I remember that the Reapers only select one race to make a Capital ship each cycle, and the other races get turned into lesser Reapers. Someone feel free to correct me here.

Pretty much right. From the Reaper Variants codex entry:

* CAPITAL SHIPS are Sovereign-class Reapers two kilometers in length. They typically target the dreadnoughts, defense installations, and industrial cities of organic civilizations. Experts believe the Reapers harvest a single species of organics during each cycle of extinction to create these massive ships. Some capital ships are capable of launching small drones equivalent to fighters.* DESTROYERS are 160 meters long and, in astounding numbers, make up the bulk of the Reaper fleet. They engage cruisers and other, smaller ships, as well as communications posts and enemy command centers. Research suggests destroyers are created from those species that are not harvested to make capital ships.

Of course, the experts could be wrong about that.

Modifié par AlanC9, 29 août 2012 - 08:35 .

[CaFe87]

I did not read the complete thread, so I am sorry if this has been mentioned already.
But the Leviathan wanted the Thralls preserved so they could pay tribute to them. I do not see how any of those reapers is doing that.
So who wrote that crappy Catalyst programming?

[Sarevok Synder]

CaFé87 wrote...

I did not read the complete thread, so I am sorry if this has been mentioned already.
But the Leviathan wanted the Thralls preserved so they could pay tribute to them. I do not see how any of those reapers is doing that.
So who wrote that crappy Catalyst programming?

Bioware writers.


EDIT

I've just noticed that some overzealous mod deleted my meme, I guess the truth hurts. Sooooo..........

Modifié par Sarevok Synder, 30 août 2012 - 09:33 .

[nevar00]

The Catalyst not making sense is fine, it's the antagonist it can have flawed logic.

But Bioware has turned this game into a pile of dog doo. They tossed all this garbage of a plot on in the twelfth hour of the game. It's a bit late for all this isn't it? This exposition dump just doesn't work because it's ridiculous, contradicts itself, and convoluted. And above all, unnecessary.

[TK514]

Tocquevillain wrote...

How do you get such a ridiculous idea and jump ahead to "anything would have made more sense than the way the Catalyst chose"? Your idea is completely at odds with the goal of promoting the continuous existence of life in the universe. I mean, listen to yourself, you're thinking more rigidly (and stupidly, according to the community's beliefs regarding the story) than even the Catalyst!

Catalyst with mandate to protect life: "I will let life develop naturally wherever it springs up, but spacefaring, intelligent species will be destroyed every 50k years so they don't kill everything. "

Sounds a bit dumb according to the community, but how does this sound...?

TK541 with mandate to protect life  - "Let intelligent life advance to the point where machines created by intelligent life kill everything in the galaxy. I will hide two Leviathans in space to make babies, achieving my mandate. "

Since when does 'preserve life' equate to 'give a fig about what happens to the rest of the galaxy'?  If a computer were given the directive 'preserve life', then it's far more likely to use the most direct and literal interpretation of that directive.  It won't care about what happens to the rest of the galaxy, particularly when it has the technology to remove itself and its protected samples from the galaxy altogether.

Actually, upon reflection, you're right.  A breeding pair of any species is unnecessary to the stated directive of preserving organic life.  The directive doesn't stipulate preserving sentient life.  Just organic life, which at its basic level means organic life functions.  It could have fulfulled the stated directive by collecting a bunch of bacteria and hiding them in the void.

Why would any program pick 'police the galaxy forever' over 'maintain a small self-replenishing sample with redundancies on a controlled and secure facility'?  Sure, it's not very exciting for an action story, but is a literal fulfillment of the directive.  If BioWare wanted exciting and intelligent both, maybe they should have picked a motive for the Catalyst that couldn't have been solved with the sci-fi tech equivalent of scooping up a jar full of lake water and hiding it.

In the end, either the Catalyst picked a completely nonsensical way to fulfill its directive, or BioWare picked a nonsensical directive to try to explain why the Catalyst does what it does.  Neither of which do the already bad storytelling of ME3 any favors.

Modifié par TK514, 29 août 2012 - 09:11 .

[Tocquevillain]

TK514 wrote...

Tocquevillain wrote...

How do you get such a ridiculous idea and jump ahead to "anything would have made more sense than the way the Catalyst chose"? Your idea is completely at odds with the goal of promoting the continuous existence of life in the universe. I mean, listen to yourself, you're thinking more rigidly (and stupidly, according to the community's beliefs regarding the story) than even the Catalyst!

Catalyst with mandate to protect life: "I will let life develop naturally wherever it springs up, but spacefaring, intelligent species will be destroyed every 50k years so they don't kill everything. "

Sounds a bit dumb according to the community, but how does this sound...?

TK541 with mandate to protect life  - "Let intelligent life advance to the point where machines created by intelligent life kill everything in the galaxy. I will hide two Leviathans in space to make babies, achieving my mandate. "

Since when does 'preserve life' equate to 'give a fig about what happens to the rest of the galaxy'?  If a computer were given the directive 'preserve life', then it's far more likely to use the most direct and literal interpretation of that directive.  It won't care about what happens to the rest of the galaxy, particularly when it has the technology to remove itself and its protected samples from the galaxy altogether.

Actually, upon reflection, you're right.  A breeding pair of any species is unnecessary to the stated directive of preserving organic life.  The directive doesn't stipulate preserving sentient life.  Just organic life, which at its basic level means organic life functions.  It could have fulfulled the stated directive by collecting a bunch of bacteria and hiding them in the void.

Why would any program pick 'police the galaxy forever' over 'maintain a small self-replenishing sample with redundancies on a controlled and secure facility'?  Sure, it's not very exciting for an action story, but is a literal fulfillment of the directive.  If BioWare wanted exciting and intelligent both, maybe they should have picked a motive for the Catalyst that couldn't have been solved with the sci-fi tech equivalent of scooping up a jar full of lake water and hiding it.

In the end, either the Catalyst picked a completely nonsensical way to fulfill its directive, or BioWare picked a nonsensical directive to try to explain why the Catalyst does what it does.  Neither of which do the already bad storytelling of ME3 any favors.

It's an A.I., did you forget that or were you too busy trying to circlejerk over the story? 

It's an A.I. that went about its business in a ruthlessly calculated way as you expect a machine to, but it also wasn't dumb enough to do what you think a computer would do. It understood the directives given to it by the Leviathan.

I mean, does it really take a genius to think this through? Leviathan SAYS they WANTED all life to continue living because the Reapers (CORRECTION:  Leviathans) were paid TRIBUTE by them, so WHY would they create an A.I. that would do what you've described? Now, *obviously* the Leviathan made a mistake: they gave the A.I. rules and paramters, but weren't specific enough about the MEANS used to achieve the goal of managing life in the galaxy for the benefit of the Leviathans.

I don't think the writing is all that bad, I think the fans are just bad at thinking things through, and enjoy jumping to conclusions, propelling the epic circlejerk forward under the sheer weight and momentum already built.

Modifié par Tocquevillain, 29 août 2012 - 10:47 .

[humes spork]

The Angry One wrote...

Too bad that by doing so, they've made the Catalyst a liar (again), crazy or possibly both...The Catalyst is either a psychopath or the tool of psychopaths. Weren't you trying to apologise for it again?

...you still haven't figured out that's the way it was meant to be, have you. It's a pretty standard "zeroth law of robotics" plot: the badly-programmed AI -- or well-programmed AI given bad orders -- goes bonkers. If you don't like that, that's your right, and call BW/EA out for culminating the trilogy as a standard sci-fi trope. I might agree. Whargarbling as if you don't understand the trope itself, or not stopping whargarbling long enough to figure out that trope's placement and usage, is just foolish.

Not every fiction antagonist is Grand Admiral Thrawn, who happens to be devastatingly intelligent, charismatic, sane and rational, but just possessed of a different ideology, you know. Most antagonists have flaws or major malfunctions (heh) that skew their logic or worldview. That's why they're villains and/or antagonists.

Seriously, people don't ****, moan, whine or complain because The Joker is crazy. That's how he is, why he is what he is, and why he is an antagonist. Griping that The Joker is crazy, irrational, and possessed of poor logic would just make you look immensely foolish and demonstrate an equally immense fundamental misunderstanding of the character and his place in the Batman mythos.

People don't ****, moan, whine and/or complain that James Moriarty is a sociopath, despite being otherwise ingenious, charismatic, and rational. That's how he is, why he is what he is, and why he is an antagonist. Griping that Moriarty is a sociopath just makes you look foolish and demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the character.

And, more pertinently to the Catalyst, people don't ****, moan, whine, and/or complain HAL-9000 is crazy, illogical, insane, irrational, or a liar -- at least, they don't after reading 2010 when HAL's actions and motives were exposited. HAL was a well-programmed AI that was fed conflicting directives and pooped out "KILL ALL MEATBAGS" as its only available solution. That's how it is, why it did what it did, and why it was the antagonist in 2001. Griping HAL-9000 is any of those aforementioned things just makes you look foolish and demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the character.

And, that brings us to the Catalyst. It is an AI that, regardless how well it was programmed was faced with solving an unsolvable dillemma and pooped out "HARVEST ALL MEATBAGS" as its only available solution. That's how it is, why it did what it did, and why it is an antagonist. And you're griping about it being crazy, a liar, a psychopath, or whatever you want to call it -- so how do you think you look?

[Eckswhyzed]

humes spork wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Too bad that by doing so, they've made the Catalyst a liar (again), crazy or possibly both...The Catalyst is either a psychopath or the tool of psychopaths. Weren't you trying to apologise for it again?

...you still haven't figured out that's the way it was meant to be, have you. It's a pretty standard "zeroth law of robotics" plot: the badly-programmed AI -- or well-programmed AI given bad orders -- goes bonkers. If you don't like that, that's your right, and call BW/EA out for culminating the trilogy as a standard sci-fi trope. I might agree. Whargarbling as if you don't understand the trope itself, or not stopping whargarbling long enough to figure out that trope's placement and usage, is just foolish.

Not every fiction antagonist is Grand Admiral Thrawn, who happens to be devastatingly intelligent, charismatic, sane and rational, but just possessed of a different ideology, you know. Most antagonists have flaws or major malfunctions (heh) that skew their logic or worldview. That's why they're villains and/or antagonists.

Seriously, people don't ****, moan, whine or complain because The Joker is crazy. That's how he is, why he is what he is, and why he is an antagonist. Griping that The Joker is crazy, irrational, and possessed of poor logic would just make you look immensely foolish and demonstrate an equally immense fundamental misunderstanding of the character and his place in the Batman mythos.

People don't ****, moan, whine and/or complain that James Moriarty is a sociopath, despite being otherwise ingenious, charismatic, and rational. That's how he is, why he is what he is, and why he is an antagonist. Griping that Moriarty is a sociopath just makes you look foolish and demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the character.

And, more pertinently to the Catalyst, people don't ****, moan, whine, and/or complain HAL-9000 is crazy, illogical, insane, irrational, or a liar -- at least, they don't after reading 2010 when HAL's actions and motives were exposited. HAL was a well-programmed AI that was fed conflicting directives and pooped out "KILL ALL MEATBAGS" as its only available solution. That's how it is, why it did what it did, and why it was the antagonist in 2001. Griping HAL-9000 is any of those aforementioned things just makes you look foolish and demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the character.

And, that brings us to the Catalyst. It is an AI that, regardless how well it was programmed was faced with solving an unsolvable dillemma and pooped out "HARVEST ALL MEATBAGS" as its only available solution. That's how it is, why it did what it did, and why it is an antagonist. And you're griping about it being crazy, a liar, a psychopath, or whatever you want to call it -- so how do you think you look?

THIS. SO MUCH THIS.

Anyone who has any basic understanding about FAI, decision theory or the Singularity should be able to grasp the Catalyst's motives.

[PuppiesOfDeath2]

humes spork wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Too bad that by doing so, they've made the Catalyst a liar (again), crazy or possibly both...The Catalyst is either a psychopath or the tool of psychopaths. Weren't you trying to apologise for it again?

...you still haven't figured out that's the way it was meant to be, have you. It's a pretty standard "zeroth law of robotics" plot: the badly-programmed AI -- or well-programmed AI given bad orders -- goes bonkers. If you don't like that, that's your right, and call BW/EA out for culminating the trilogy as a standard sci-fi trope. I might agree. Whargarbling as if you don't understand the trope itself, or not stopping whargarbling long enough to figure out that trope's placement and usage, is just foolish.

Not every fiction antagonist is Grand Admiral Thrawn, who happens to be devastatingly intelligent, charismatic, sane and rational, but just possessed of a different ideology, you know. Most antagonists have flaws or major malfunctions (heh) that skew their logic or worldview. That's why they're villains and/or antagonists.

Seriously, people don't ****, moan, whine or complain because The Joker is crazy. That's how he is, why he is what he is, and why he is an antagonist. Griping that The Joker is crazy, irrational, and possessed of poor logic would just make you look immensely foolish and demonstrate an equally immense fundamental misunderstanding of the character and his place in the Batman mythos.

People don't ****, moan, whine and/or complain that James Moriarty is a sociopath, despite being otherwise ingenious, charismatic, and rational. That's how he is, why he is what he is, and why he is an antagonist. Griping that Moriarty is a sociopath just makes you look foolish and demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the character.

And, more pertinently to the Catalyst, people don't ****, moan, whine, and/or complain HAL-9000 is crazy, illogical, insane, irrational, or a liar -- at least, they don't after reading 2010 when HAL's actions and motives were exposited. HAL was a well-programmed AI that was fed conflicting directives and pooped out "KILL ALL MEATBAGS" as its only available solution. That's how it is, why it did what it did, and why it was the antagonist in 2001. Griping HAL-9000 is any of those aforementioned things just makes you look foolish and demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the character.

And, that brings us to the Catalyst. It is an AI that, regardless how well it was programmed was faced with solving an unsolvable dillemma and pooped out "HARVEST ALL MEATBAGS" as its only available solution. That's how it is, why it did what it did, and why it is an antagonist. And you're griping about it being crazy, a liar, a psychopath, or whatever you want to call it -- so how do you think you look?

I am griping that this antagonist is trotted out at the very end of a three-game trilogy, when for the rest of the 120-hours of gameplay the antagonists were the Reapers.  Moreover, the Reapers before the ME3 ending were malevolent sadists who relished causing pain to Shepard and others ("This hurts you"), called you "vermin" and were otherwise quite emotionally invested in your destruction ("Face your annihilation").  At the end, however, they are dispassionate machines following a misguided program. 

It is the soul-crushing dissonance of the conclusion that is the problem.  And the betrayal of the narrative that preceded it.

[humes spork]

PuppiesOfDeath2 wrote...

It is the soul-crushing dissonance of the conclusion that is the problem.  And the betrayal of the narrative that preceded it.

I agree with that -- but that's not the complaint at the heart of what I'm addressing.

The complaint I'm addressing is the issue with the Catalyst as a character, and how well that character is understood, entirely apart from its introduction in the narrative, or the characterization of the Reapers which is a different set of characters in their own right. Complaining about what the Catalyst is as a character, why it is that way and why it is an antagonist -- all of which, whether a given audience-member likes it or not, is clearly exposited as of the EC -- is separate from all that.

[PuppiesOfDeath2]

humes spork wrote...

PuppiesOfDeath2 wrote...

It is the soul-crushing dissonance of the conclusion that is the problem.  And the betrayal of the narrative that preceded it.

I agree with that -- but that's not the complaint at the heart of what I'm addressing.

The complaint I'm addressing is the issue with the Catalyst as a character, and how well that character is understood, entirely apart from its introduction in the narrative, or the characterization of the Reapers which is a different set of characters in their own right. Complaining about what the Catalyst is as a character, why it is that way and why it is an antagonist -- all of which, whether a given audience-member likes it or not, is clearly exposited as of the EC -- is separate from all that.

I agree that the narrative concept of an AI (or other form of antagonist) embracing a destructive code (moral or otherwise) is not a novel literary device.  But it is the placement of that device within the narrative that gives the story coherence. 

[humes spork]

PuppiesOfDeath2 wrote...

I agree that the narrative concept of an AI (or other form of antagonist) embracing a destructive code (moral or otherwise) is not a novel literary device.

This is to what I am responding and addressing. As was the OP.

This is relevant.

But it is the placement of that device within the narrative that gives the story coherence.

This is not to what I am responding and addressing. Nor was the OP.

This is not relevant, at least for my part in the discussion.

[PuppiesOfDeath2]

I will note, by the way, that a BioWare community manager has been active on Twitter today restating that there will be no DLC which will show Shepard after the ending scenes that have already been released. Until the compelling economics--which I believe will ultimately cause a reversal of this decision--are felt, don't expect BioWare to acquiesce. It won't, at least in the short term.

I believe the value of the ME IP has been seriously eroded, however. Someone will address that eventually, but it won't happen soon, I sadly predict.

[PuppiesOfDeath2]

humes spork wrote...

PuppiesOfDeath2 wrote...

I agree that the narrative concept of an AI (or other form of antagonist) embracing a destructive code (moral or otherwise) is not a novel literary device.

This is to what I am responding and addressing. As was the OP.

This is relevant.

But it is the placement of that device within the narrative that gives the story coherence.

This is not to what I am responding and addressing. Nor was the OP.

This is not relevant, at least for my part in the discussion.

I understand that.

What I am suggesting is that the criticisms levied by those of us who complain about the Starbrat extend beyond just the isolated concept which it embodies.  My criticism extends also to the impact it had on the narrative, which I know is not your point.  I'm not sure that the two are so easily separated because the device can only be fully assessed, I think, in narrative context.  But I get the point you're making.

[humes spork]

PuppiesOfDeath2 wrote...

What I am suggesting is that the criticisms levied by those of us who complain about the Starbrat extend beyond just the isolated concept which it embodies.  My criticism extends also to the impact it had on the narrative, which I know is not your point.  I'm not sure that the two are so easily separated because the device can only be fully assessed, I think, in narrative context.  But I get the point you're making.

In absence of the extended cut, I'd agree -- the Catalyst was not given sufficient time to firmly establish its character and place in the narrative. But, with the extended cut the Catalyst was given sufficient time to establish all that, in the form of an eleventh-hour information dump. I agree that it wasn't done well, but on the other hand it was done.

My point is people are still complaining as if it wasn't done at all, rather than how it was done. The former of which is what TAO is doing here, opposed to the latter which is where I think people are better off focusing their displeasure, time, and effort. Because otherwise, as I mentioned in my initial comment, people just come off as having a poor understanding of what was exposited and shoot themselves in the foot in the process -- because, if someone demonstrates a lack of understanding of what is, how credible are they as a source for feedback and commentary on how it should be?

Modifié par humes spork, 29 août 2012 - 10:41 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

PuppiesOfDeath2 wrote...

humes spork wrote...

PuppiesOfDeath2 wrote...

I agree that the narrative concept of an AI (or other form of antagonist) embracing a destructive code (moral or otherwise) is not a novel literary device.

This is to what I am responding and addressing. As was the OP.

This is relevant.

But it is the placement of that device within the narrative that gives the story coherence.

This is not to what I am responding and addressing. Nor was the OP.

This is not relevant, at least for my part in the discussion.

I understand that.

What I am suggesting is that the criticisms levied by those of us who complain about the Starbrat extend beyond just the isolated concept which it embodies.  My criticism extends also to the impact it had on the narrative, which I know is not your point.  I'm not sure that the two are so easily separated because the device can only be fully assessed, I think, in narrative context.  But I get the point you're making.

I think this goes back to the game's failure to implement this sort of character correctly. As Humes says, there's nothing wrong with a flawed villain or the malfunctioning AI. The problem I have is even with the EC, the Catalyst isn't quite portrayed as this insane character who needs to be shut down for losing its mind. While I'm sure some might have felt sympathy for HAL, I doubt anyone said "I totally get where he's coming from".

Instead, it feels more like the Catalyst is explaining to a toddler (Shepard) why he's completely wrong and we're expected to go along with it. I get that the man is losing alot of blood and probably hallucinating, but when you consider all the other opportunities you're given to call characters out on their beliefs, the lack of ability to do it with the Catalyst is disappointing. Even if the argument still ends with Shepard being given the same three choices, it would at least be great to see a battle of wills.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 29 août 2012 - 10:44 .

[humes spork]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Instead, it feels more like the Catalyst is explaining to a toddler (Shepard) why he's completely wrong and we're expected to go along with it.

Personally, I kind of got that (and dug it).

From the Catalyst's perspective, it's talking to a primitive meatbag that doesn't even register as an autonomous being of intrinsic value, that managed to pull itself out of the primordial ooze far enough to build and deploy the Crucible, a piece of technology it doesn't even understand. It's a cockroach with an atom bomb.

From Shepard's perspective...it's a stupid, stubborn AI with way more power than it has a right (or the capability) to use, let alone responsible, and arguing with it is an exercise in futility. Better to just nod your head and say "okay" until it points the direction to the "Reaper Off Button" of your choice. I get that people would have liked to have seen at least the possibility of Shepard engaging in a little word-fencing with it, but in the end what exactly would be the point? You're still arguing with a sentient rebar while the Apocalyptic Battle of All Time rages all around you and thousands are dying by the second.

Modifié par humes spork, 29 août 2012 - 10:56 .

[2Shepards]

TAO for the win/laugh.

Again, a total contrivance from our pals at Bio.

However was cool to see Lev. Love how Harby is three times larger then the creature its based upon. Insecure much Harby?

[2Shepards]

PuppiesOfDeath2 wrote...



I am griping that this antagonist is trotted out at the very end of a three-game trilogy, when for the rest of the 120-hours of gameplay the antagonists were the Reapers.  Moreover, the Reapers before the ME3 ending were malevolent sadists who relished causing pain to Shepard and others ("This hurts you"), called you "vermin" and were otherwise quite emotionally invested in your destruction ("Face your annihilation").  At the end, however, they are dispassionate machines following a misguided program. 

It is the soul-crushing dissonance of the conclusion that is the problem.  And the betrayal of the narrative that preceded it.

woot woot

[BaladasDemnevanni]

humes spork wrote...

 I get that people would have liked to have seen at least the possibility of Shepard engaging in a little word-fencing with it, but in the end what exactly would be the point? You're still arguing with a sentient rebar while the Apocalyptic Battle of All Time rages all around you and thousands are dying by the second.

Sometimes, the point of a good scene is simply that it does a great job of developing conflict between the hero and the villain, regardless of where the conversation goes. Even if you don't have enough influence to persuade Saren to kill himself, it doesn't make your interactions with him any less interesting as he explains the whole "submission preferable to extinction" bit. Likewise with Illusive Man when you get the opportunity to spar with him. Fiction is filled with moments where two characters with conflicting viewpoints meet on equal terms.

With the type of claim the Catalyst is putting forth, particularly when ME gave the impression that we were past the organic/synthetic conflict, the Catalyst's argument is like a slap in the face. Bioware's forte has always been narrative exposition, though sometimes to a fault. The error with the ME3 ending is the exact opposite: not enough examination of the Catalyst as a character.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 29 août 2012 - 11:08 .

[tettenjager]

Hey ho, angry bro, its just a game no?

Modifié par tettenjager, 29 août 2012 - 11:19 .

[humes spork]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

With the type of claim the Catalyst is putting forth, particularly when ME gave the impression that we were past the organic/synthetic conflict, the Catalyst's argument is like a slap in the face. Bioware's forte has always been narrative exposition, though sometimes to a fault. The error with the ME3 ending is the exact opposite: not enough examination of the Catalyst as a character.

That particular problem is endemic to the entire narrative structure. The Reapers being subordinate to a single force -- internal or external -- would have had to have been introduced much sooner in the narrative, to properly establish that friction culminating in a satisfying ending. As in, ME2 early, rather than in the waning hours of ME3 itself. That's why Harbinger actually being the Catalyst, or some derivation thereof, has been a lynchpin of alternate interpretations and theories, and a source of much complaint, about the game's ending since March. Since, in terms of overall narrative structure, Harbinger was set up to be the Alpha Reaper the whole way through and the logical assumption as to who would be the "final" antagonist rather than Starbrat, or even TIM.

But as I said, that's a greater problem and complaint stemming not from the Catalyst's character itself but rather the game's (and trilogy's) narrative structure. The Catalyst was almost certainly set up to be the trilogy's (and ME3's) "Revan" moment, but fell severely short as it was foreshadowed, or the player set up to expect it, in absolutely no way whereas other "Revan" moments for which BioWare is so famous were.

Modifié par humes spork, 29 août 2012 - 11:21 .

[PuppiesOfDeath2]

humes spork wrote...

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

With the type of claim the Catalyst is putting forth, particularly when ME gave the impression that we were past the organic/synthetic conflict, the Catalyst's argument is like a slap in the face. Bioware's forte has always been narrative exposition, though sometimes to a fault. The error with the ME3 ending is the exact opposite: not enough examination of the Catalyst as a character.

That particular problem is endemic to the entire narrative structure. The Reapers being subordinate to a single force -- internal or external -- would have had to have been introduced much sooner in the narrative, to properly establish that friction culminating in a satisfying ending. As in, ME2 early, rather than in the waning hours of ME3 itself. That's why Harbinger actually being the Catalyst, or some derivation thereof, has been a lynchpin of alternate interpretations and theories, and a source of much complaint, about the game's ending since March. Since, in terms of overall narrative structure, Harbinger was set up to be the Alpha Reaper the whole way through and the logical assumption as to who would be the "final" antagonist rather than Starbrat, or even TIM.

But as I said, that's a greater problem and complaint stemming not from the Catalyst's character itself but rather the game's (and trilogy's) narrative structure. The Catalyst was almost certainly set up to be the trilogy's (and ME3's) "Revan" moment, but fell severely short as it was foreshadowed, or the player set up to expect it, in absolutely no way whereas other "Revan" moments for which BioWare is so famous were.

And you don't have to explain much about why the antagonist is evil.  The fact of its evil is sufficient, generally.  This narrative could have been as simple as "We use your DNA to reproduce.  You are inferior.  Prepare to be harvested."  Then we get to kill them.  Why overthink it?  (Harbinger had already said, "You are vermin."  And "you are bacteria."  What else do you need?)

But you are absolutely correct that the preceding narrative pointed to a climatic encounter with Harbinger, which never happens.  It is replaced not with confrontation with your nemesis, but rather some pre-ordained, awkwardly forced bargain with an entirely new character.