293 réponses à ce sujet

[El Mito]

txgoldrush is quite the elaborate troll.

[txgoldrush]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

sacrifice (ME3 main theme),

True.

overcoming odds,

 

I didn't overcome any odds. The Catalyst did all the work. 

the conflict between created and creators for example.

In what way was this theme adressed? 

Created and Creators was effectively adressed three times in the series. 

With EDI and Cerberus, with the Geth and Quarians, and with the Krogan and Salarians. 

I'm not entirely sure how it was carried over until the end. Synthetics versus organics as a huge galaxy defining conflict was never a theme. 

Wrong.

The very notion that Shepard "changed the variables", the fact that he was the first organic to do so since the billion year cycle started...what are the odds? Shepard overcame the odds to even meet with the Catalyst and present herself as a solution.

Sorry, Liara deserves credit fot the Crucible and Shepard for the Catalyst......the protagonist and the deuteragonist acted on the narrative.

Considere those thee arcs are the biggest arcs of ME3 and two of them, the entire series.

[Jenonax]

txgoldrush wrote...

WRONG

You seriously endear yourself to no one by doing that.  We are not morons, we can talk to you without you shouting, thank you.

The notion of a master was plainly foreshadowed on Thessia, by Vendetta, who says that the Reapers are servants to a pattern, but it cannot identify its master.

We knew from the beginning that the Reapers followed a pattern.  And the leader was being built up to be Harbinger, hence his huge involement in ME2.

Modifié par Jenonax, 02 septembre 2012 - 08:20 .

[txgoldrush]

El Mito wrote...

txgoldrush is quite the elaborate troll.

I'm such a troll......I go against your preconcieved notions of the ending...because the ending has to be bad, it just has to.

[txgoldrush]

Jenonax wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

WRONG

You seriously endear yourself to no one by doing that.  We are not morons, we can talk to you without you shouting, thank you.

The notion of a master was plainly foreshadowed on Thessia, by Vendetta, who says that the Reapers are servants to a pattern, but it cannot identify its master.

We knew from the beginning that the Reapers followed a pattern.  And the master was being built up to be Harbinger, hence his huge involement in ME2.

And what evidence does ME2 have to say Harbinger was supposed to be the master?

None

[XXXMETATRONXXX]

txgoldrush wrote...

I was right all along, after the EC came out but before Leviathan.....that instead of the Catalyst coming out of the blue to solve Shepards problem, it is Shepard that solves the Catalyst's problem....or ignores his problem and destroys him or takes his job instead. This is a subversion of the classic roots of a Deus Ex Machina, where in Ancient Greek drama, the "god from the machine" comes down and solves everything. Here the "god of the machine" has the problem and the hero has the solution, a completely backwards relationship.

Leviathan confirms this

A) While the Catalyst was foreshadowed on Thessia and its motives foreshadowed on Rannoch, he is clearly foreshadowed in Leviathan, maybe too much so.

It is said that he hasn't attained his goal of the preservation of life, and that he is using the cycle to look for the answer. Shepard IS that answer.

Really, if the Catalyst was the viewpoint character in Mass Effect, it would be Shepard that would be a Deus Ex Machina, the Catalyst's contrived solution to his unsolvable problem.

The ending was never a DEM, its the fact that it was underdeveloped that was the problem.

Actually, you have a detail wrong. In the original ending, the catalyst tells Shepard that if he chooses control, "You will become the catalyst."

Destroying them doesn't make Shepard the catalyst. It's obvious.

[grey_wind]

Jenonax wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

WRONG

You seriously endear yourself to no one by doing that.  We are not morons, we can talk to you without you shouting, thank you.

The notion of a master was plainly foreshadowed on Thessia, by Vendetta, who says that the Reapers are servants to a pattern, but it cannot identify its master.

We knew from the beginning that the Reapers followed a pattern.  And the master was being built up to be Harbinger, hence his huge involement in ME2.

I have to be honest. When Vendetta said they were servants to a pattern, I thought he was just talking metaphorically. Like the Reapers were simply following what they believed they absolutely had to do.

[Hexley UK]

The catalyst is a textbook DEM.

If you think otherwise your highly delusional or a troll.

[Jenonax]

txgoldrush wrote...


And what evidence does ME2 have to say Harbinger was supposed to be the master?

None

the fact that he was quite clearly built up to be the main Antagonist.  The Main Villain, the face of the Reapers.  He was behind the Collectors, and if we go back to the dark energy plot, then the purpose of the Collectors was to solve the Dark Energy problem, Harbinger's plan would have saved the whole Galaxy. 

He is consistently the only one who bothers to talk to Shepard, he is constantly the only Reaper with a plan (bar Sovereign who was left behind), and then of course there's Arrival.  The dude is the face of the Reapers, who need I remind you, were supposed to be 'each a nation, independent.'  There wasn't supposed to be a master, rather a leader.  Harbinger.

Edit I didn't mean to write master in previous post, rather leader.

Modifié par Jenonax, 02 septembre 2012 - 08:19 .

[txgoldrush]

XXXMETATRONXXX wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

I was right all along, after the EC came out but before Leviathan.....that instead of the Catalyst coming out of the blue to solve Shepards problem, it is Shepard that solves the Catalyst's problem....or ignores his problem and destroys him or takes his job instead. This is a subversion of the classic roots of a Deus Ex Machina, where in Ancient Greek drama, the "god from the machine" comes down and solves everything. Here the "god of the machine" has the problem and the hero has the solution, a completely backwards relationship.

Leviathan confirms this

A) While the Catalyst was foreshadowed on Thessia and its motives foreshadowed on Rannoch, he is clearly foreshadowed in Leviathan, maybe too much so.

It is said that he hasn't attained his goal of the preservation of life, and that he is using the cycle to look for the answer. Shepard IS that answer.

Really, if the Catalyst was the viewpoint character in Mass Effect, it would be Shepard that would be a Deus Ex Machina, the Catalyst's contrived solution to his unsolvable problem.

The ending was never a DEM, its the fact that it was underdeveloped that was the problem.

Actually, you have a detail wrong. In the original ending, the catalyst tells Shepard that if he chooses control, "You will become the catalyst."

Destroying them doesn't make Shepard the catalyst. It's obvious.

You are arguing a point I did not make. And/or operators are key.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 02 septembre 2012 - 08:23 .

[txgoldrush]

Hexley UK wrote...

The catalyst is a textbook DEM.

If you think otherwise your highly delusional or a troll.

No, its you that is delusional.

If he is textbook DEM, why doesn't he act like it? Why does he look to Shepard to solve a problem, the Catalyst's problem.

He is a subverted DEM....the roles are backwards here.

[RenegonSQ]

Lol@this thread

[nevar00]

No. The Crucible itself shouldn't exist at all. It's a dues ex machina or at worst, lazy and poor writing.

"We conveninelty found this weapon in the final third of the story that has never been built and we're not sure what it does, but let's put all our resources into building it!" Yeah? No. Bad writing.

[Hexley UK]

txgoldrush wrote...

Hexley UK wrote...

The catalyst is a textbook DEM.

If you think otherwise your highly delusional or a troll.

No, its you that is delusional.

If he is textbook DEM, why doesn't he act like it? Why does he look to Shepard to solve a problem, the Catalyst's problem.

He is a subverted DEM....the roles are backwards here.

No because the catalyst (a previously unseen character with godlike powers) still provides the means for victory at the last second...if it wasn't there Shep would have just died in the room below and never defeated the Reapers.

[El Mito]

txgoldrush wrote...

El Mito wrote...

txgoldrush is quite the elaborate troll.

I'm such a troll......I go against your preconcieved notions of the ending...because the ending has to be bad, it just has to.

No no, you're a troll because you're trolling. Idiot.

[txgoldrush]

El Mito wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

El Mito wrote...

txgoldrush is quite the elaborate troll.

I'm such a troll......I go against your preconcieved notions of the ending...because the ending has to be bad, it just has to.

No no, you're a troll because you're trolling. Idiot.

And you just don;t get it.

Sorry but ME3 bashers are ignorant on many things.

[txgoldrush]

Hexley UK wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Hexley UK wrote...

The catalyst is a textbook DEM.

If you think otherwise your highly delusional or a troll.

No, its you that is delusional.

If he is textbook DEM, why doesn't he act like it? Why does he look to Shepard to solve a problem, the Catalyst's problem.

He is a subverted DEM....the roles are backwards here.

No because the catalyst (a previously unseen character with godlike powers) still provides the means for victory at the last second...if it wasn't there Shep would have just died in the room below and never defeated the Reapers.

But he doesn't...the Crucible does, its the one that provides means to victory. The Crucible changes the "varaibles" of the catalyst.

[MegaSovereign]

nevar00 wrote...

No. The Crucible itself shouldn't exist at all. It's a dues ex machina or at worst, lazy and poor writing.

"We conveninelty found this weapon in the final third of the story that has never been built and we're not sure what it does, but let's put all our resources into building it!" Yeah? No. Bad writing.

It's introduction isn't really all that contrived...In fact it makes sense. You help Liara becoming the Shadow Broker. The Shadow Broker database is quite possibly the best source of information on how to defeat the Reapers. Shepard buys the galaxy some time by destroying the Alpha Relay. Liara spends that 6 months searching for any leads and her search leads her to the Mars Archives.

What's annoying about the Crucible plot is everything after you find the blueprints. The game never tells us what it even does until the end of the game. The details of the device is so vague that it borders absurdity. The Mass Effect team should have and could have done better in explaining what the device actually was as the plot progressed.

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 02 septembre 2012 - 08:34 .

[txgoldrush]

nevar00 wrote...

No. The Crucible itself shouldn't exist at all. It's a dues ex machina or at worst, lazy and poor writing.

"We conveninelty found this weapon in the final third of the story that has never been built and we're not sure what it does, but let's put all our resources into building it!" Yeah? No. Bad writing.

ME1 has the same formula.....we find that the past cycle allows us victory. ME3 is no different, in fact, its consistant with ME1 in that regard.

At least the deuteragonist, through HER ACTIONS, discovers the Crucible.

Liara succeeds in what she set out do to in between games, plain and simple, no deus ex machina.

But bashers keep ignoring this clear fact...they keep ignoring the clear actions the protagonist and the deuteragonist have on the story.

[XXXMETATRONXXX]

Just stop overthinking things. It's a video game, and it does not have to be that complicated.

[WhiteKnyght]

MegaSovereign wrote...

nevar00 wrote...

No. The Crucible itself shouldn't exist at all. It's a dues ex machina or at worst, lazy and poor writing.

"We conveninelty found this weapon in the final third of the story that has never been built and we're not sure what it does, but let's put all our resources into building it!" Yeah? No. Bad writing.

It's introduction isn't really all that contrived...In fact it makes sense. You help Liara becoming the Shadow Broker. The Shadow Broker database is quite possibly the best source of information on how to defeat the Reapers. Shepard buys the galaxy some time by destroying the Alpha Relay. Liara spends that 6 months searching for any leads and her search leads her to the Mars Archives.

What's annoying about the Crucible plot is everything after you find the blueprints. The game never tells us what it even does until the end of the game. The details of the device is so vague that it borders absurdity. The Mass Effect team should have and could have done better in explaining what the device actually was as the plot progressed.

The Crucible was hinted at by Liara at the end of Lair of the Shadow Broker also.

Liara mentions that the Broker was looking for a way to survive the Harvest and was researching the protheans, believed there was "something more."

This research from the Broker is what lead Liara to the Mars Archives and to the Crucible blueprints.

Also the point in game was that you have to rely on faith, not fact when pursuing the Crucible. Nobody would have built it if they knew it was just a giant battery. They needed to believe that it was a superweapon.

They actually figured out what it was, but believed there was more with the Catalyst. Which was pretty true.

[txgoldrush]

MegaSovereign wrote...

nevar00 wrote...

No. The Crucible itself shouldn't exist at all. It's a dues ex machina or at worst, lazy and poor writing.

"We conveninelty found this weapon in the final third of the story that has never been built and we're not sure what it does, but let's put all our resources into building it!" Yeah? No. Bad writing.

It's introduction isn't really all that contrived...In fact it makes sense. You help Liara becoming the Shadow Broker. The Shadow Broker database is quite possibly the best source of information on how to defeat the Reapers. Shepard buys the galaxy some time by destroying the Alpha Relay. Liara spends that 6 months searching for any leads and her search leads her to the Mars Archives.

What's annoying about the Crucible plot is everything after you find the blueprints. The game never tells us what it even does until the end of the game. The details of the device is so vague that it borders absurdity. The Mass Effect team should have and could have done better in explaining what the device actually was as the plot progressed.

They do.....see the Hackett, Anderson, Shepard conversation after Citadel II mission. They discover that it does emit a great deal of energy. They just really do not know the full capabiltiy, hence the search of the Catalyst.

It makes far more sense that Saren trying to find the Conduit in ME1 when he doesn't need it.

[Hexley UK]

txgoldrush wrote...

Hexley UK wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Hexley UK wrote...

The catalyst is a textbook DEM.

If you think otherwise your highly delusional or a troll.

No, its you that is delusional.

If he is textbook DEM, why doesn't he act like it? Why does he look to Shepard to solve a problem, the Catalyst's problem.

He is a subverted DEM....the roles are backwards here.

No because the catalyst (a previously unseen character with godlike powers) still provides the means for victory at the last second...if it wasn't there Shep would have just died in the room below and never defeated the Reapers.

But he doesn't...the Crucible does, its the one that provides means to victory. The Crucible changes the "varaibles" of the catalyst.

The Crucible that Shepard would not have even been able to use had it not been for God-Child swooping in at the last minute, raising Shep up on the elavator and then explaining how it all works........

That's no different to a hero in a fantasy story going to slay the invincible dragon he knows he can't kill and at the last second a God pops up gives him a Invincible Dragon killing Sword +20 that only the hero can use and says "hit it in the heart to kill it". Which one of those is the DEM? The Hero? The Sword? Or the God who just happened to pop up on the last page with exactly what the Hero needed?

Think about it...I can wait.

Modifié par Hexley UK, 02 septembre 2012 - 08:40 .

[txgoldrush]

Hexley UK wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Hexley UK wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Hexley UK wrote...

The catalyst is a textbook DEM.

If you think otherwise your highly delusional or a troll.

No, its you that is delusional.

If he is textbook DEM, why doesn't he act like it? Why does he look to Shepard to solve a problem, the Catalyst's problem.

He is a subverted DEM....the roles are backwards here.

No because the catalyst (a previously unseen character with godlike powers) still provides the means for victory at the last second...if it wasn't there Shep would have just died in the room below and never defeated the Reapers.

But he doesn't...the Crucible does, its the one that provides means to victory. The Crucible changes the "varaibles" of the catalyst.

The Crucible that Shepard would not have even been able to use had it not been for God-Child swooping in at the last minute, raising Shep up on the elavator and then explaining how it all works........

That's no different to a hero in a fantasy story going to slay the invincible dragon he knows he can't kill and at the last second a God pops up gives him a Invincible Dragon killing Sword +20 that only the hero can use and says "hit it in the heart to kill it". Which one of those is the DEM? The Hero? The Sword? Or the God who just happened to pop up on the last page with exactly what the Hero needed?

Think about it...I can wait.

However, the protagonists actions lead the "God Child" to raise him up to use the Crucible.

Shepard acted on the Catalyst before he was revealed...which is far from DEM.

[Bfler]

About what do you argue here? Most people hate the Catalyst and it's concept. Nothing will change that and therefore it is irrelevant if it is a DEM or whatever.