The Catalyst conversation should have been like this:
The conversation with the Catalyst should have been like the conversation with President Eden.
Débuté par
mass perfection
, févr. 16 2013 05:25
Retour en haut
#3
Posté 16 février 2013 - 05:32
mass perfection
-
- Members
- 2 253 messages
Why not?David7204 wrote...
No it shouldn't have.
#4
Posté 16 février 2013 - 05:35
David7204
-
- Members
- 15 187 messages
Because that wouldn't be an ending with meaningful heroism, choices that matter, satisfying and meaningful themes and conflicts, and all the other things on the list required for an 11/10 ending.
#6
Posté 16 février 2013 - 05:42
Auld Wulf
-
- Members
- 1 284 messages
Yeahno. President Eden was one of the most idiotic excuses for a computer I've ever seen, overcome by simple logic conundrums that wouldn't even fool non-sapient computers.
#7
Posté 16 février 2013 - 05:45
Obadiah
-
- Members
- 5 720 messages
I think players really want that Catalyst conversation to be some sort of confrontation, rather than just an information dump, because of the choices they are left with. Unfortunately, the ending is what it is.
#8
Posté 16 février 2013 - 05:47
David7204
-
- Members
- 15 187 messages
How could that have been done in a satisfying way that makes sense?
#9
Posté 16 février 2013 - 05:53
nickkcin11
-
- Members
- 439 messages
I just don't think the Catalyst should be in the game at all...
Also, the cool part of John Henry Eden was not the conversation, it was the the discovery that he was not a person, rather a computer.
Also, the cool part of John Henry Eden was not the conversation, it was the the discovery that he was not a person, rather a computer.
#10
Posté 16 février 2013 - 05:55
David7204
-
- Members
- 15 187 messages
I doubt that simply having Harbinger explain things instead of a child hologram explaining things would change much.
Modifié par David7204, 16 février 2013 - 05:57 .
#11
Posté 16 février 2013 - 05:59
nickkcin11
-
- Members
- 439 messages
No, it wouldn't have. But at least it wouldn't have been so confusing and unexpected (in a bad way).
#12
Posté 16 février 2013 - 06:03
David7204
-
- Members
- 15 187 messages
Careful, now. What exactly was the 'unexpected in a bad way' part? Was it that the Reaper leader took the form of a child? Or was it that fact that the Reaper leader turns to be a not-as-much-of-a-bad-guy-as-people-may-have-wanted? Because that would have been exactly the same with Harbinger. Even worse, maybe.
#13
Posté 16 février 2013 - 06:10
nickkcin11
-
- Members
- 439 messages
The situation wouldn't have worked with Harbinger, it'd have to be rewritten. And I don't think reasoning with Harbinger would've made anyone happy. But it was odd when a holographic child came out of the woodwork of the Citadel announcing he controlled everything all along and his motivations and such. If I was told to predict the ending to Mass Effect a year and a half ago, I guarantee that if I had 100 guesses, I wouldn't have come close to that.
#14
Posté 16 février 2013 - 06:15
David7204
-
- Members
- 15 187 messages
There does need to be some kind of confrontation between the hero and the antagonist. And they can't just fight. They need to talk. Not only that, the final confrontation must reveal some sort of information that the player wasn't aware of previously.
If you have any ideas, I'm always willing to listen.
If you have any ideas, I'm always willing to listen.
#15
Posté 16 février 2013 - 06:23
CynicalShep
-
- Members
- 2 381 messages
David7204 wrote...
There does need to be some kind of confrontation between the hero and the antagonist. And they can't just fight. They need to talk. Not only that, the final confrontation must reveal some sort of information that the player wasn't aware of previously.
If you have any ideas, I'm always willing to listen.
I agree with almost everything you said (surprisingly). There should be a revelation in the end. That revelation shouldn't be the main antagonist, though. ME3 isn't detective fiction.
#16
Posté 16 février 2013 - 06:29
David7204
-
- Members
- 15 187 messages
Frankly, I don't see that as a problem at all. Despite what people say, the Catalyst is not a Deus Ex Machina. It's well within the methods and techniques of the Reapers, as well as foreshadowed in the Codex and such.
The fact that the antagonist is physically on the Citadel instead of 'within' a Reaper...why should that matter? I don't see what difference that makes at all. Why does it matter if Harbinger is killing organics to stop them from making synthetics or if another AI is killing organics to stop them from making synthetics? It's not a 'new' villain in any meaningful sense.
No, I think it's mostly just people struggling to come up with reasons why they hate the ending. Which is fine. These things are complex, and I don't expect them to understand them on instinct. But that doesn't make the reasons true.
The fact that the antagonist is physically on the Citadel instead of 'within' a Reaper...why should that matter? I don't see what difference that makes at all. Why does it matter if Harbinger is killing organics to stop them from making synthetics or if another AI is killing organics to stop them from making synthetics? It's not a 'new' villain in any meaningful sense.
No, I think it's mostly just people struggling to come up with reasons why they hate the ending. Which is fine. These things are complex, and I don't expect them to understand them on instinct. But that doesn't make the reasons true.
Modifié par David7204, 16 février 2013 - 06:37 .
#17
Posté 16 février 2013 - 06:44
CynicalShep
-
- Members
- 2 381 messages
Where exactly was GlowJob foreshadowed? He was a DEM, he fits the definition perfectly. He is a plot device designed to stop something we could not defeat conventionally and he was introduced right at the end of the game to solve our insoluble problem. I really couldn't care less where the antagonist is, as long as he isn't introduced in the last 5 minutes of the game and hardly makes any sense.
And no, I disliked the kid before he even gave me the 3 choices. My first reaction was "WTF is a holo-kid doing here". It was a poor attempt at making us sympathize with the Catalyst.
You're not as subtle as you might think, David.
And no, I disliked the kid before he even gave me the 3 choices. My first reaction was "WTF is a holo-kid doing here". It was a poor attempt at making us sympathize with the Catalyst.
David7204 wrote...
These things are complex, and I don't expect them to understand them on instinct. But that doesn't make the reasons true.
You're not as subtle as you might think, David.
#18
Posté 16 février 2013 - 06:53
David7204
-
- Members
- 15 187 messages
Okay, no.
You're lumping the villain and the motive together as if they're the same thing. You're acting as if the Reaper's motive and the Catalyst are one and the same. They aren't. You don't like the Catalyst? He could be removed incredibly easily. Simply have Harbinger meet Shepard at the Citadel instead of the Catalyst. But guess what? The Reaper motive is still there, still exactly the same. The three options to the problem are still there, still exactly the same. The resolution to the problem is still there, still exactly the same. All the things you claim 'hardly make any sense' are still there, still exactly the same.
Clearly, the existence of the Catalyst, the character, is not the cause of any of that. So no, he isn't a DEM.
You're lumping the villain and the motive together as if they're the same thing. You're acting as if the Reaper's motive and the Catalyst are one and the same. They aren't. You don't like the Catalyst? He could be removed incredibly easily. Simply have Harbinger meet Shepard at the Citadel instead of the Catalyst. But guess what? The Reaper motive is still there, still exactly the same. The three options to the problem are still there, still exactly the same. The resolution to the problem is still there, still exactly the same. All the things you claim 'hardly make any sense' are still there, still exactly the same.
Clearly, the existence of the Catalyst, the character, is not the cause of any of that. So no, he isn't a DEM.
#19
Posté 16 février 2013 - 06:53
Galbrant
-
- Members
- 1 566 messages
Oh god yes. OP the conflict with Eden was done much better than the catalyst. You can actually show Eden his logic has errors unlike that bratalyst.
#20
Posté 16 février 2013 - 07:01
The RPGenius
-
- Members
- 561 messages
The meeting with President Eden was appropriate and fit well with Fallout 3's setting and ideas. But trying the same thing wouldn't work at all with Mass Effect's setting and themes, and would feel bizarre, out of place, and dissatisfying, not to mention a little stupid. The conversation's events would cheapen Shepard's character, and as a whole it would retroactively worsen the entire series by spotlighting a wholly different set of themes and moral questions than those the series had thus far been focusing on. It would be like trying to jam an entirely different work of fiction's climax into a game where it didn't belong at all.
So, really, the only difference would be that the Eden-esque conversation would probably have better writing.
So, really, the only difference would be that the Eden-esque conversation would probably have better writing.
Modifié par The RPGenius, 16 février 2013 - 07:01 .
#21
Posté 16 février 2013 - 07:04
CynicalShep
-
- Members
- 2 381 messages
David7204 wrote...
Okay, no.
You're lumping the villain and the motive together as if they're the same thing. You're acting as if the Reaper's motive and the Catalyst are one and the same. They aren't. You don't like the Catalyst? He could be removed incredibly easily. Simply have Harbinger meet Shepard at the Citadel instead of the Catalyst. But guess what? The Reaper motive is still there, still exactly the same. The three options to the problem are still there, still exactly the same. The resolution to the problem is still there, still exactly the same. All the things you claim 'hardly make any sense' are still there, still exactly the same.
Clearly, the existence of the Catalyst, the character, is not the cause of any of that. So no, he isn't a DEM.
Even that would have been better than what we got. It would still be bad (imho) but a tad better than the glowing thing coming out of nowhere. Turns out that Reapers are merely tools and this "AI" gives us 3 choices because the Crucible, which was made by people who had no idea what it was supposed to do, "changed him". And the 3 options that became possible only because of an implausible construct were either destroy everything Reaper (which technically goes against his programming), replace the AI with another AI or disolve into something magical and change everything in the galaxy at molecular level.
Tell me David, how is this a quality ending?
#22
Posté 16 février 2013 - 07:06
2484Stryker
-
- Members
- 1 526 messages
Certainly not, that would require actual thought processes to occur and full conversations to be written down. That would have meant no "high level" conversations and a plethora of ambiguities to keep ME3 "artsy"...
We can't have that now, can we?
We can't have that now, can we?
#23
Posté 16 février 2013 - 07:09
David7204
-
- Members
- 15 187 messages
All of that about the Crucible and the three options would still be just as true if Harbinger offered the three options and not the Catalyst. You're still irrationally associating everything you don't like about the endings with the Catalyst. Nothing would change; people would just be complaining about Harbinger instead of the Catalyst.
It's not a quality ending. And I've never done once argued that it is.
It's not a quality ending. And I've never done once argued that it is.
Modifié par David7204, 16 février 2013 - 07:22 .
#24
Posté 16 février 2013 - 07:16
k.lalh
-
- Members
- 758 messages
David7204 wrote...
All of that about the Crucible and the three options would still be just as true if Harbinger offered the three options and not the Catalyst. You're still illogically associating everything you don't like about the endings with the Catalyst. Nothing would change; people would just be complaining about Harbinger instead of the Catalyst.
It's not a quality ending. And I've never done once argued that it is.
I suppose the benefit that Harbinger would offer is that at least he is a known entity, unlike the Catalyst. It wouldn't make the Catalyst feel like a DEM, which seems to be the issue with many of the people on this thread.
Modifié par k.lalh, 16 février 2013 - 07:16 .
#25
Posté 16 février 2013 - 07:25
CynicalShep
-
- Members
- 2 381 messages
@ David7204
And I've never associated everything I don't like about the ending with the Catalyst. I dislike the Catalyst and I dislike the ending and those two, while related, aren't consequential. I think that the Catalyst doesn't belong in the conclusion of the story, but my dislike for the ending (or ME3 as a whole, for that matter) isn't limited to it.
And I've never associated everything I don't like about the ending with the Catalyst. I dislike the Catalyst and I dislike the ending and those two, while related, aren't consequential. I think that the Catalyst doesn't belong in the conclusion of the story, but my dislike for the ending (or ME3 as a whole, for that matter) isn't limited to it.
