3DandBeyond wrote...
I quoted things you posted and mischaracterized-what you interpreted people were saying and I disagree with your take on that. I don't think you understood what people were saying. The complaints that revolved around the kid were not centered on the crucible, but sat squarely on his glowing head. The fact was that the crucible was of course a part of all that and yes that it wasn't distanced from him. You say that the kid's opiniion is fixed in the EC and Leviathan-no it isn't.
Yes, it is, because the kid's opinion is not a flaw, period. He is the goddamned villain and you are supposed to find his problem and solution problematic as the hero. What needed fixing that WAS fixed in the EC and Leviathan was that in the original endings his opinion was presented as truth, evidenced by Shepard's meek rebuttals when he bothered to respond at all. In the EC, Shepard not only discounts the Catalyst at every turn, he is also given dialogue wheels that basically say, "You're wrong, this is wrong, I'm not picking this." In Leviathan, you find out his great maxim based on millions of years of experience was actually something programmed into him by an arrogant, foolish organic race.
No one ever believed he wasn't programmed to believe there's some fight between organics and synthetics.
Uh, yes they did. Many people believed that the Catalyst was speaking from millenia of experience, which was an issue because it was essentially BioWare using lore as an excuse to espouse a view the players did not agree with. WIth the EC and Leviathan, we find out that it is merely a case of confirmation bias favoring something that he never decided or chose to believe.
You see destroy as a refutation of his beliefs, but in fact it is an affirmation of them
No, it isn't. He doesn't want you to pick destroy, and as far as we know he isn't the one who made the Crucible target all synthetics. Both Control and Destroy are refusals of his beliefs. The destruction of the synthetics is not a consequence of agreeing with him or being forced to, but a consequence of how the Crucible was built.
And the number 3 issue is a huge one, the biggest one and yes it does have a consequence. It takes the player out of the story.
I said there was no consequence WITHIN the story. For example, changing the relay destruction has a huge in-story consequence. Whether or not the Catalyst exists, the choices would have remained. What you (and I) are therefore asking for is a change to the consequences of the ending produced by using the Crucible, at least in Destroy.
And what comes next basically is hard to fix if he's not somehow diminished in importance.
You don't have to diminish the Catalyst at all to change the Crucible destroying all synthetics.
Still and all he exists in the game. It's why if there were to be some additions to what we have, such as a fully intact crucible, it could actually work to take him out as a factor. Destroy (as a possibility) would no longer affirm his assertions. He wants EDI and the geth destroyed-they're the problem. If that no longer happened, destroy would not solve his problem ever. It would be totally removed as any kind of solution for the kid and his flaw. It would only do what the galaxy wants it to do.
He does NOT want the geth and EDI destroyed. That is why he tells you that Destroy does NOT solve his problem. He harvests both synthetic and organic races. He is the Catalyst for peace between them. Destroy does not affirm his assertions, or else he would simply destroy synthetic races as they were produced.
Modifié par CronoDragoon, 14 septembre 2012 - 06:14 .
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
