dreman9999 wrote...
My point still stands.The Night Mammoth wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
DO understand that not all stories fallow the same format. How a stoy is told is not set in stone.
Look at Pulp fiction...When is the clinax and fall action shown?
I edited my post whilst you were in the process of replying.
1. Without that data for Virgil you would not beable to stop sovergin.The Night Mammoth wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
The catalyst is just there to explain the reapers nothing more. He is not needed to work the crucible. We could easily have EDI do it.The Night Mammoth wrote...
Greylycantrope wrote...
Placement has everything to do with this argument. "Don’t introduce any new characters or subplots" It doesn't get much more end then the last scene before the resolution. Notice how vigil doesn't appear in the very last scene before the resolution.dreman9999 wrote...
Placement has nothing to do with identity. What it trying to do is.
Notice how Vigil only exists for that scene. It's an expositionary tool, whereas the Catalyst is far more important to the plot.
Except it's still far more important to the plot. Vigil exists to tell you things, to give you the data file so you can prevent Sovereign activating the Citadel Relay.
The Catalyst is the king of the Reapers, the reason Shepard is even there at the end. The character has a direct affect on events outside the scene in which you actually see it.
Pulp fiction.Greylycantrope wrote...
Daring doesn't always pay off. Sometimes it falls flat on it's face.Hudathan wrote...
So every single story should follow the exact same structure and never do anything daring or unexpected? Stuff like this is why I rarely go to the movies anymore
dreman9999 wrote...
1. Without that data for Virgil you would not beable to stop sovergin.The Night Mammoth wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
The catalyst is just there to explain the reapers nothing more. He is not needed to work the crucible. We could easily have EDI do it.The Night Mammoth wrote...
Greylycantrope wrote...
Placement has everything to do with this argument. "Don’t introduce any new characters or subplots" It doesn't get much more end then the last scene before the resolution. Notice how vigil doesn't appear in the very last scene before the resolution.dreman9999 wrote...
Placement has nothing to do with identity. What it trying to do is.
Notice how Vigil only exists for that scene. It's an expositionary tool, whereas the Catalyst is far more important to the plot.
Except it's still far more important to the plot. Vigil exists to tell you things, to give you the data file so you can prevent Sovereign activating the Citadel Relay.
The Catalyst is the king of the Reapers, the reason Shepard is even there at the end. The character has a direct affect on events outside the scene in which you actually see it.
2.The catayst only explines the reapers and what the crucible does. The catayst does less to help Shepard then Virgil. He is only there for the player to understand the reapers.
Exorcist 2: the hereticdreman9999 wrote...
Pulp fiction.Greylycantrope wrote...
Daring doesn't always pay off. Sometimes it falls flat on it's face.Hudathan wrote...
So every single story should follow the exact same structure and never do anything daring or unexpected? Stuff like this is why I rarely go to the movies anymore
dreman9999 wrote...
Pulp fiction.Greylycantrope wrote...
Daring doesn't always pay off. Sometimes it falls flat on it's face.Hudathan wrote...
So every single story should follow the exact same structure and never do anything daring or unexpected? Stuff like this is why I rarely go to the movies anymore
Modifié par Chaotic-Fusion, 18 septembre 2012 - 07:05 .
But waht make the catalyst like Virgil is the fact it severs as a voice box to tie up plot point. AKA explain the reapers,Fawx9 wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
1. Without that data for Virgil you would not beable to stop sovergin.The Night Mammoth wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
The catalyst is just there to explain the reapers nothing more. He is not needed to work the crucible. We could easily have EDI do it.The Night Mammoth wrote...
Greylycantrope wrote...
Placement has everything to do with this argument. "Don’t introduce any new characters or subplots" It doesn't get much more end then the last scene before the resolution. Notice how vigil doesn't appear in the very last scene before the resolution.dreman9999 wrote...
Placement has nothing to do with identity. What it trying to do is.
Notice how Vigil only exists for that scene. It's an expositionary tool, whereas the Catalyst is far more important to the plot.
Except it's still far more important to the plot. Vigil exists to tell you things, to give you the data file so you can prevent Sovereign activating the Citadel Relay.
The Catalyst is the king of the Reapers, the reason Shepard is even there at the end. The character has a direct affect on events outside the scene in which you actually see it.
2.The catayst only explines the reapers and what the crucible does. The catayst does less to help Shepard then Virgil. He is only there for the player to understand the reapers.
Exactly why Vigil is more like Vendetta. Both of whome are placed before the ending.
The catalyst is a seperate entity that was introduced at the very end of the the series.
Sometime refer to a point that most of the time it successed. That means how a story is told is not set in stone. That's my point.The Night Mammoth wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
Pulp fiction.Greylycantrope wrote...
Daring doesn't always pay off. Sometimes it falls flat on it's face.Hudathan wrote...
So every single story should follow the exact same structure and never do anything daring or unexpected? Stuff like this is why I rarely go to the movies anymore
Did your read comprehension get kicked in the head by horse?
He said sometimes. Sometimes.
Turing it off does not mean you control what it does. If I turn off a fan, it does not mean I can make it make waffles.Chaotic-Fusion wrote...
Oh, dreman, "arguing" with you is like arguing with a brick wall.
The catalyst is introduced at the end. That is the problem, according to the OP. The only defence you have been able to come up with is comparing him erroneously to Vigil and then you started sprouting some incoherent gibberish. Oh, and let's not forget how you claimed he's not actually a new character.
Also, the catalyst offers 3 choices. He offers them, if you dare talk back he shuts the crucible off. He controls it.
Yes it does. by it's meaning it means occasionally, reather all than all the times. That means it barely happens. If you say something sometimes fail that means it succeed most of the time.Greylycantrope wrote...
some·times/ˈsəmˌtīmz/
Adverb:
Occasionally, rather than all of the time
The word has no implication about which time is more successful
dreman9999 wrote...
Turing it off does not mean you control what it does. If I turn off a fan, it does not mean I can make it make waffles.Chaotic-Fusion wrote...
Oh, dreman, "arguing" with you is like arguing with a brick wall.
The catalyst is introduced at the end. That is the problem, according to the OP. The only defence you have been able to come up with is comparing him erroneously to Vigil and then you started sprouting some incoherent gibberish. Oh, and let's not forget how you claimed he's not actually a new character.
Also, the catalyst offers 3 choices. He offers them, if you dare talk back he shuts the crucible off. He controls it.
Remeber, he does not turn it off if you pick destroy, not change destory to another choice.
Of couse he allows you to. I was not arguing that he does not. Heck, that fact he lets you up and ask you to pick a choice means he allows you to. My arguement is that he has no control what the crucible does.Chaotic-Fusion wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
Turing it off does not mean you control what it does. If I turn off a fan, it does not mean I can make it make waffles.Chaotic-Fusion wrote...
Oh, dreman, "arguing" with you is like arguing with a brick wall.
The catalyst is introduced at the end. That is the problem, according to the OP. The only defence you have been able to come up with is comparing him erroneously to Vigil and then you started sprouting some incoherent gibberish. Oh, and let's not forget how you claimed he's not actually a new character.
Also, the catalyst offers 3 choices. He offers them, if you dare talk back he shuts the crucible off. He controls it.
Remeber, he does not turn it off if you pick destroy, not change destory to another choice.
He turns it off. That means he has the capacity to turn it off at any given time. Tha means you make the choices because he allows you to. His solution doesn't work anymore, even destroy is preferable.
Modifié par dreman9999, 18 septembre 2012 - 07:27 .
As I said before, you don' have to fallow rules to a "t" to make a great story. You bend the rules if your dilivery is done well....Though ME3 original endings did not deliver them well.Greylycantrope wrote...
oc·ca·sion·al·ly:adverb
at times; from time to time; now and then.
Again no, and if that was the case:
"If you say something sometimes fail that means it succeed most of the time." So you're bringing up pulp fiction to counter my statement why? By your definition I've implied that being daring pays off for the most part.
dreman9999 wrote...
1. Without that data for Virgil you would not beable to stop sovergin.
2.The catayst only explines the reapers and what the crucible does. The catayst does less to help Shepard then Virgil. He is only there for the player to understand the reapers.
1. You put it in the system after you kill Saren. Your team yells at you to quickly put it in the system.The Night Mammoth wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
1. Without that data for Virgil you would not beable to stop sovergin.
Then you never hear about it again.2.The catayst only explines the reapers and what the crucible does. The catayst does less to help Shepard then Virgil. He is only there for the player to understand the reapers.
It's the leader of the Reapers.
That's subjective. Some people like it comfortable and familiar, some peope like to be surprised. A creator is free to do whatever they like. You are free to like it or not.Greylycantrope wrote...
Daring doesn't always pay off. Sometimes it falls flat on it's face.Hudathan wrote...
So every single story should follow the exact same structure and never do anything daring or unexpected? Stuff like this is why I rarely go to the movies anymore
Modifié par Hudathan, 18 septembre 2012 - 07:30 .
dreman9999 wrote...
Sometime refer to a point that most of the time it successed.The Night Mammoth wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
Pulp fiction.Greylycantrope wrote...
Daring doesn't always pay off. Sometimes it falls flat on it's face.Hudathan wrote...
So every single story should follow the exact same structure and never do anything daring or unexpected? Stuff like this is why I rarely go to the movies anymore
Did your read comprehension get kicked in the head by horse?
He said sometimes. Sometimes.
That means how a story is told is not set in stone. That's my point.
Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 18 septembre 2012 - 07:54 .
Nice job ignoring the question. The fromat of the ending didn't change after EC you know, we got a few plotholes fixed and an epilogue, the central concept of the execultion is still there.dreman9999 wrote...
As I said before, you don' have to fallow rules to a "t" to make a great story. You bend the rules if your dilivery is done well....Though ME3 original endings did not deliver them well.
The execution did change. We got a full explination to what the reapers are , want and why in post- ec.Greylycantrope wrote...
Nice job ignoring the question. The fromat of the ending didn't change after EC you know, we got a few plotholes fixed and an epilogue, the central concept of the execultion is still there.dreman9999 wrote...
As I said before, you don' have to fallow rules to a "t" to make a great story. You bend the rules if your dilivery is done well....Though ME3 original endings did not deliver them well.
Chaotic-Fusion wrote...
Oh, dreman, "arguing" with you is like arguing with a brick wall.
The catalyst is introduced at the end. That is the problem, according to the OP. The only defence you have been able to come up with is comparing him erroneously to Vigil and then you started sprouting some incoherent gibberish. Oh, and let's not forget how you claimed he's not actually a new character.
Also, the catalyst offers 3 choices. He offers them, if you dare talk back he shuts the crucible off. He controls it.
The entire point of this topic is that a good story follows the rules the op put up in his openung statement.The Night Mammoth wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
Sometime refer to a point that most of the time it successed.The Night Mammoth wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
Pulp fiction.Greylycantrope wrote...
Daring doesn't always pay off. Sometimes it falls flat on it's face.Hudathan wrote...
So every single story should follow the exact same structure and never do anything daring or unexpected? Stuff like this is why I rarely go to the movies anymore
Did your read comprehension get kicked in the head by horse?
He said sometimes. Sometimes.
I know. You're citing Pulp Fiction as if that contradicts what he said, which it doesn't.That means how a story is told is not set in stone. That's my point.
Something I did no disagree with.
dreman9999 wrote...
1. You put it in the system after you kill Saren. Your team yells at you to quickly put it in the system.The Night Mammoth wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
1. Without that data for Virgil you would not beable to stop sovergin.
Then you never hear about it again.2.The catayst only explines the reapers and what the crucible does. The catayst does less to help Shepard then Virgil. He is only there for the player to understand the reapers.
It's the leader of the Reapers.
2.As I said before...Voicebox. There to expline the reapers.
Retour en haut