Let me guess. It should have been like the conversation becasue you can make edan kill himself and therefore not having to follow his orders and having the satisfaction of watching him self destruct.
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
#27
Posté 16 février 2013 - 07:31
David7204
-
- Members
- 15 187 messages
Are you sure? Because your complaints about the Catalyst focus heavily on things that really have very little do to with him. Do you still consider the Catalyst a DEM now that I've explained why he isn't? If so, why?
#28
Posté 16 février 2013 - 07:36
CynicalShep
-
- Members
- 2 381 messages
David7204 wrote...
Are you sure? Because your complaints about the Catalyst focus heavily on things that really have very little do to with him. Do you still consider the Catalyst a DEM now that I've explained why he isn't? If so, why?
Yes, I'm sure and yes, I do. If Harbringer was to come forward with the solutions for the cycle at the end of the game it wouldn't have made a great deal of sense but it wouldn't be a DEM, either. The kid is a new plot device introduced at the end of the game. He offers a solution to a seemingly insoluble problem. This is the definition of DEM; you're overthinking it. Harbringer wouldn't have been a new device => not a DEM.
Modifié par CynicalShep, 16 février 2013 - 07:36 .
#29
Posté 16 février 2013 - 07:41
Khevan77
-
- Members
- 174 messages
The main problem with the Catalyst is the fact that "his" very existance negates the plot of the previous games in the series. If the Catalyst is the Citadel ("it's a part of me"), then why would the Reapers rely on the Keepers to open the Citadel to the Reapers out in dark space? Why would Sovereign need to counteract the changes made by the Prothean scientists? The Catalyst would have been able to open said relay without outside help. The cycle would have continued as previous ones had, with the Citadel (and the centralized galactic government) being neutralized in one surprise attack, the Relay network would have been compromised. That would have instantly fragmented the galaxy, leaving the Reapers free reign to, well, reap.
Having the Catalyst is a total plot inconsistancy, it's a contrived plot device intended to showcase some artistic attempt at a "smart" ending, without thought to the previous games, and the basic lore of the MEverse.
Players who played ME3 as their intro to the series may not catch this (no fault of theirs) but Bioware certainly should have taken this into account.
The choices themselves aren't terrible so much as badly introduced and described (the EC helps with that, but not enough in my opinion) but the fact that the choices are offered at all, via the Catalyst, destroys the series.
Having the Catalyst is a total plot inconsistancy, it's a contrived plot device intended to showcase some artistic attempt at a "smart" ending, without thought to the previous games, and the basic lore of the MEverse.
Players who played ME3 as their intro to the series may not catch this (no fault of theirs) but Bioware certainly should have taken this into account.
The choices themselves aren't terrible so much as badly introduced and described (the EC helps with that, but not enough in my opinion) but the fact that the choices are offered at all, via the Catalyst, destroys the series.
#30
Posté 16 février 2013 - 07:46
David7204
-
- Members
- 15 187 messages
No. The character is not the motive. The character is not the solution. The character is not a 'plot device.'
It doesn't matter who introduces them. The motive, solution, information, 'plot device,' whatever would all be new. It makes zero difference whether they're introduced by the Catalyst or Harbinger. You cannot possibly argue that they wouldn't be new if Harbinger introduced them.
If you agree with my previous post that the motive, solution, and all that could easily be exactly the same without the Catalyst and therefore cannot be caused by him, I can't see how you can claim simultaneously that the Catalyst is the problem and that you don't irrationally associate the Catalyst with those problems. If you disagree, you should be able to point out why.
It doesn't matter who introduces them. The motive, solution, information, 'plot device,' whatever would all be new. It makes zero difference whether they're introduced by the Catalyst or Harbinger. You cannot possibly argue that they wouldn't be new if Harbinger introduced them.
If you agree with my previous post that the motive, solution, and all that could easily be exactly the same without the Catalyst and therefore cannot be caused by him, I can't see how you can claim simultaneously that the Catalyst is the problem and that you don't irrationally associate the Catalyst with those problems. If you disagree, you should be able to point out why.
Modifié par David7204, 16 février 2013 - 07:47 .
#31
Posté 16 février 2013 - 08:05
CynicalShep
-
- Members
- 2 381 messages
@ David7204
I did explain why but you misinterpret my arguments (purposefully or otherwise). The kid is a DEM. To be a DEM, Harbinger would have to be unknown to us and introduced in the very end. He does not fit that criteria, hence the big difference. The solutions would indeed be the same and the ending wouldn't be much better (like I repeatedly stated in my revious posts). And the kid is a plot device: a character whose only purpose, by design, is to provide resolution to the conflict.
I agree that the motive and solution could have easily been the same if GlowJob didn't exist. Still, I do not quite understand why you claim that they cannot be caused by him. His only purpose was explaning his motivation and providing us with a solution. If he exists - he is the cause. If he doesn't exist - he isn't.
I did explain why but you misinterpret my arguments (purposefully or otherwise). The kid is a DEM. To be a DEM, Harbinger would have to be unknown to us and introduced in the very end. He does not fit that criteria, hence the big difference. The solutions would indeed be the same and the ending wouldn't be much better (like I repeatedly stated in my revious posts). And the kid is a plot device: a character whose only purpose, by design, is to provide resolution to the conflict.
I agree that the motive and solution could have easily been the same if GlowJob didn't exist. Still, I do not quite understand why you claim that they cannot be caused by him. His only purpose was explaning his motivation and providing us with a solution. If he exists - he is the cause. If he doesn't exist - he isn't.
Modifié par CynicalShep, 16 février 2013 - 08:06 .
#32
Posté 16 février 2013 - 08:12
LeandroBraz
-
- Members
- 3 864 messages
David7204 wrote...
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.
This man speaks the truth.
#33
Posté 16 février 2013 - 08:16
LeandroBraz
-
- Members
- 3 864 messages
CynicalShep wrote...
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.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.
He is not introduced in the last five minutes, he is introduced on Thessia, the prothean VI talk about it...
#34
Posté 16 février 2013 - 08:19
David7204
-
- Members
- 15 187 messages
That's not true. Suppose you have a story where one character leaves a message describing a plot point for another on a videotape. So the character watches the tape.
The only purpose of the tape in the story is to allow the two characters to communicate. That's it. That's the only reason it exists. Its only purpose. But does the tape cause the plot point? Of course not. The plot point exists with or without the tape. It would be possible to remove the tape from the story and the plot point would be exactly the same.
Likewise, the only purpose of the Catalyst is to explain the Reapers' motive and offer the three choices. The Reapers are going to have a motive and the problem is going to have a resolution with or without the Catalyst.
You're confusing the message with the messenger. The tape does not cause anything. It could easily be removed. What's important is the message the tape contains. The Catalyst does not cause anything. It could easily be removed. What matters is the information the Catalyst offers.
The only purpose of the tape in the story is to allow the two characters to communicate. That's it. That's the only reason it exists. Its only purpose. But does the tape cause the plot point? Of course not. The plot point exists with or without the tape. It would be possible to remove the tape from the story and the plot point would be exactly the same.
Likewise, the only purpose of the Catalyst is to explain the Reapers' motive and offer the three choices. The Reapers are going to have a motive and the problem is going to have a resolution with or without the Catalyst.
You're confusing the message with the messenger. The tape does not cause anything. It could easily be removed. What's important is the message the tape contains. The Catalyst does not cause anything. It could easily be removed. What matters is the information the Catalyst offers.
Modifié par David7204, 16 février 2013 - 08:21 .
#35
Posté 16 février 2013 - 08:31
LeandroBraz
-
- Members
- 3 864 messages
Funny fact:
Fallout 3, like ME3, had it ending improved by DLC. The last decision of the game is to activate something in a deadly radioactive area, but you have at least 3 possible companions that can deal with this amount of radioactive and could do this task without being harmed, one of them even did something like that when you met him. On the original ending, they would simple refuse to help you if you ask them, with really stupid excuses, so the game could force you to decide between you sacrificing yourself, our asking a true hero to do it (another person that would die going there). With the DLC, if you ask them (which is the logical choice that probably most people did), they will help.
Fallout 3, like ME3, had it ending improved by DLC. The last decision of the game is to activate something in a deadly radioactive area, but you have at least 3 possible companions that can deal with this amount of radioactive and could do this task without being harmed, one of them even did something like that when you met him. On the original ending, they would simple refuse to help you if you ask them, with really stupid excuses, so the game could force you to decide between you sacrificing yourself, our asking a true hero to do it (another person that would die going there). With the DLC, if you ask them (which is the logical choice that probably most people did), they will help.
#36
Posté 16 février 2013 - 08:36
LeandroBraz
-
- Members
- 3 864 messages
CynicalShep wrote...
@ David7204
I did explain why but you misinterpret my arguments (purposefully or otherwise). The kid is a DEM. To be a DEM, Harbinger would have to be unknown to us and introduced in the very end. He does not fit that criteria, hence the big difference. The solutions would indeed be the same and the ending wouldn't be much better (like I repeatedly stated in my revious posts). And the kid is a plot device: a character whose only purpose, by design, is to provide resolution to the conflict.
I agree that the motive and solution could have easily been the same if GlowJob didn't exist. Still, I do not quite understand why you claim that they cannot be caused by him. His only purpose was explaning his motivation and providing us with a solution. If he exists - he is the cause. If he doesn't exist - he isn't.
The AI wasn't unknow nor it was added in the very end. Everyone just jumped the prothean VI dialogue on Thessia? You learn there that there's something bigger than the reapers, causing the cycles.
#37
Posté 16 février 2013 - 08:41
CynicalShep
-
- Members
- 2 381 messages
@ LeandroBraz
The Catalyst is introduced in the last 5 minutes. Vendetta said he "believes they (Reapers) are only servants of the pattern". It's a bit of foreshadowing but it doesn't introduce GlowJob.
@ David7204
That is not true. Remove the tape and the plot changes. The other character would not be able to find out about the plot point unless he watched that tape. In order to have the same plot you would have to replace the tape with a different device that serves the same purpose.
Which I agreed with you repeatedly about. The only difference is that Reapers are a known enemy since ME1 and the Catalyst is only introduced to the player in the very end.
The message has to be written somewhere. To get your message across you need a messenger, be it a tape, an AI, a banner or a metaphor. A message doesn't exist without its messenger.
The Catalyst is introduced in the last 5 minutes. Vendetta said he "believes they (Reapers) are only servants of the pattern". It's a bit of foreshadowing but it doesn't introduce GlowJob.
@ David7204
That is not true. Remove the tape and the plot changes. The other character would not be able to find out about the plot point unless he watched that tape. In order to have the same plot you would have to replace the tape with a different device that serves the same purpose.
Which I agreed with you repeatedly about. The only difference is that Reapers are a known enemy since ME1 and the Catalyst is only introduced to the player in the very end.
The message has to be written somewhere. To get your message across you need a messenger, be it a tape, an AI, a banner or a metaphor. A message doesn't exist without its messenger.
Modifié par CynicalShep, 16 février 2013 - 08:42 .
#38
Posté 16 février 2013 - 08:43
David7204
-
- Members
- 15 187 messages
The issue is whether the tape causes the message. And it doesn't.
#39
Posté 16 février 2013 - 08:50
bboynexus
-
- Members
- 1 484 messages
To be fair, CynicalShep, Vendetta says a little more than just 'servants of the pattern'. He follows that up with, "It's presence is inferred rather than observed. The only thing certain is its intention...Galactic annihilation."
Modifié par bboynexus, 16 février 2013 - 08:50 .
#40
Posté 16 février 2013 - 08:53
AlanC9
-
- Members
- 35 580 messages
CynicalShep wrote...
The kid is a new plot device introduced at the end of the game. He offers a solution to a seemingly insoluble problem.
Offers a solution? Doesn't he complicate the solution that we thought we already had in the Crucible? I don't see how the Catalyst showing up helps to solve anything.
Not that I want to get bogged down in the technicalities of what is and isn't a DEM -- that can be entertaining, but it's of no consequence.
Modifié par AlanC9, 16 février 2013 - 08:55 .
#41
Posté 16 février 2013 - 08:57
CynicalShep
-
- Members
- 2 381 messages
David7204 wrote...
The issue is whether the tape causes the message. And it doesn't.
It did in ME3. The Catalyst was the puppeteer. He "caused the message". Reapers were his solution to his motivation. He also caused the second solution because the first was rendered obsolete.
bboynexus wrote...
To be fair, CynicalShep, Vendetta says a little more than just 'servants of the pattern'. He follows that up with, "It's presence is inferred rather than observed. The only thing certain is its intention...Galactic annihilation."
i know, but that's still nothing more than foreshadowing. It doesn't introduce the Catalyst.
#42
Posté 16 février 2013 - 08:57
David7204
-
- Members
- 15 187 messages
That's very true. The 'solution' we thought was going to happen was already in place - the Crucible. We thought that Shepard could simply get to the Citadel, activate the Crucible, and have everything be peaches and cream. The introduction of the Catalyst doesn't solve any problems - it creates them.
#43
Posté 16 février 2013 - 09:01
David7204
-
- Members
- 15 187 messages
In-universe, yes, he caused it, but that's not important. What's important is the perspective of the player. To the player, the Reapers existed long before the Catalyst did. Although we didn't know the motive specifically, we could certainly assume they had one based on dialogue. We could assume the Reapers were going to be defeated somehow. Those things existed for players before the Catalyst did.
#44
Posté 16 février 2013 - 09:02
Bryy_Miller
-
- Members
- 7 676 messages
nickkcin11 wrote...
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.
Bingo.
Eden in himself was nothing special.
I think people think Eden is better because of the choice to join or die. Which made as much difference as the Catalyst ending, in all honesty.
#45
Posté 16 février 2013 - 09:02
CynicalShep
-
- Members
- 2 381 messages
AlanC9 wrote...
Offers a solution? Doesn't he complicate the solution that we thought we already had in the Crucible? I don't see how the Catalyst showing up helps to solve anything.
Except we didn't have the solution in the Crucible. Shepard was lying down and nothing was happening. The kid stepped in, raised his platform and made the resolution possible. Had the kid not done that Reapers would have finished the job and the next cycle would have watched Liara's holo telling them that the Crucible doesn't work.
#46
Posté 16 février 2013 - 09:08
shodiswe
-
- Members
- 4 997 messages
Whoever presents the information on the plot points and and choices that creates the new unexpected endings would be part of the DEM, because it woudln't exist unless Shepard became aware of it's existance.
It would have been the same if it had been Joker rolling out on a wheelchair givign Shepard the options! The only satisfaction woudl have been that joker would have died if you tried to shoot him, unless he would be a hologram ofcourse. But assuming it was Joker he woudl die and you woudl get some satisfaction before the end of galactic civilization.
The "informer" is a nessesary part of the DEM and since the DEM coudln't exist without the informer the informer is part of THE "DEM". They arn't separable, it coudl even be a computer console that told shepard what the DEM options were, then the console would be part of it.
In this case the Catalyst as the hologram calls itself is part of the DEM or it owudln't have existed them game would just have ended with Shepard bleedign to death, the fleet gettign wiped out and the galaxy getting harvested.
Also dislikeing the art of graphical representation of the informer is possible, I got a unique request on it's looks, since it claims to be the citadel, the citadel is it's body or part of it then I would have prefered if it took the shape of the citadel, since the citadel is the catalyst it makes sense and it's part of the citadel and the citadel is part of it. If it's more than the citadel then that doesn't matter in the current exchange.
So it's possible to dislike both the design of the informer that's part of the DEM and the DEM in general. The informer is interchangable no matter how much it's a nessesary part of the DEM.
I can see what problem Cynical Shepard and David has with the project. It's possible to dislike both. Both the informer and the DEM setup in general. I could imagine that disliking both woudl make it worse than just disliking one of them.
I don't think David think's that it's possible to dislike the Informer separately if you dislike the DEM.
What if I said; Dam this videotape is outdaed technology and gives me lots of compatiability problems! coudln't they have used a more conveniant medium?
Cynical Shepard doesn't nessesarily dislike the informer for the message even if he really hates the message and that also has an impact on his views on the informer. But he disliked the informer that is..
"The issue is whether the tape causes the message. And it doesn't. "
No he dislikes the tape on it's own due to it's design and form.
Then he realized he disliekd the DEM that the informer informed him of.
It's completely rational to have separate opinions on both the artistic choices in the design of the catalyst hologram and functionality aswell as the DEM with it inform him of. It makes perfect sense.
It would have been the same if it had been Joker rolling out on a wheelchair givign Shepard the options! The only satisfaction woudl have been that joker would have died if you tried to shoot him, unless he would be a hologram ofcourse. But assuming it was Joker he woudl die and you woudl get some satisfaction before the end of galactic civilization.
The "informer" is a nessesary part of the DEM and since the DEM coudln't exist without the informer the informer is part of THE "DEM". They arn't separable, it coudl even be a computer console that told shepard what the DEM options were, then the console would be part of it.
In this case the Catalyst as the hologram calls itself is part of the DEM or it owudln't have existed them game would just have ended with Shepard bleedign to death, the fleet gettign wiped out and the galaxy getting harvested.
Also dislikeing the art of graphical representation of the informer is possible, I got a unique request on it's looks, since it claims to be the citadel, the citadel is it's body or part of it then I would have prefered if it took the shape of the citadel, since the citadel is the catalyst it makes sense and it's part of the citadel and the citadel is part of it. If it's more than the citadel then that doesn't matter in the current exchange.
So it's possible to dislike both the design of the informer that's part of the DEM and the DEM in general. The informer is interchangable no matter how much it's a nessesary part of the DEM.
I can see what problem Cynical Shepard and David has with the project. It's possible to dislike both. Both the informer and the DEM setup in general. I could imagine that disliking both woudl make it worse than just disliking one of them.
I don't think David think's that it's possible to dislike the Informer separately if you dislike the DEM.
What if I said; Dam this videotape is outdaed technology and gives me lots of compatiability problems! coudln't they have used a more conveniant medium?
Cynical Shepard doesn't nessesarily dislike the informer for the message even if he really hates the message and that also has an impact on his views on the informer. But he disliked the informer that is..
"The issue is whether the tape causes the message. And it doesn't. "
No he dislikes the tape on it's own due to it's design and form.
Then he realized he disliekd the DEM that the informer informed him of.
It's completely rational to have separate opinions on both the artistic choices in the design of the catalyst hologram and functionality aswell as the DEM with it inform him of. It makes perfect sense.
Modifié par shodiswe, 16 février 2013 - 09:09 .
#47
Posté 16 février 2013 - 09:09
CynicalShep
-
- Members
- 2 381 messages
David7204 wrote...
In-universe, yes, he caused it, but that's not important. What's important is the perspective of the player. To the player, the Reapers existed long before the Catalyst did. Although we didn't know the motive specifically, we could certainly assume they had one based on dialogue. We could assume the Reapers were going to be defeated somehow. Those things existed for players before the Catalyst did.
We assumed. We didn't know much past the "it's a videogame - we'll beat them". One of my hobbies is watching movies or reading books and predicting what will happen next (e.g. Character A will die, Character D is lying, protagonist will win/lose, etc.) Sometimes, if that movie or book is not of outstanding quality guessing becomes very easy. Regardless of how predictable some of them might be I will not know for sure untill I am faced with cold facts. Same applies to ME3
shodiswe wrote...
It's possible to dislike both. Both the informer and the DEM setup in general. I could imagine that disliking both woudl make it worse than just disliking one of them.
Yes, this is my feeling on this matter
Modifié par CynicalShep, 16 février 2013 - 09:17 .
#48
Posté 16 février 2013 - 09:15
Fixers0
-
- Members
- 4 433 messages
There shouldn't be a Catalyst conversation at all.
#49
Posté 16 février 2013 - 09:29
David7204
-
- Members
- 15 187 messages
The villain being defeated is a story thing, not a videogame thing. And tropes exist for a reason. Stories aren't low quality for following them. Most of them, anyway.
An assumption is absolutely more than enough. The villain having a motive, and the conflict having a resolution are things that we expect in all stories. They're inherent. No reasonable person would ever assume that a story like Mass Effect would have no resolution to the conflict. You assume, right from the beginning that the Reapers will be dealt with somehow. And you're right to assume that. It's valid and justified to do so.
Do you understand what you're saying? You are saying the Catalyst caused the Reapers' motive and the resolution of the conflict from a meta-perspective. That the writers had no intention whatsoever of having the Reapers being defeated and just wrote the Catalyst in for giggles, but then realized after the Catalyst was written that the conflict had to be resolved because of him. Do you realize how silly that is, and what a complete inversion of cause and effect that is?
An assumption is absolutely more than enough. The villain having a motive, and the conflict having a resolution are things that we expect in all stories. They're inherent. No reasonable person would ever assume that a story like Mass Effect would have no resolution to the conflict. You assume, right from the beginning that the Reapers will be dealt with somehow. And you're right to assume that. It's valid and justified to do so.
Do you understand what you're saying? You are saying the Catalyst caused the Reapers' motive and the resolution of the conflict from a meta-perspective. That the writers had no intention whatsoever of having the Reapers being defeated and just wrote the Catalyst in for giggles, but then realized after the Catalyst was written that the conflict had to be resolved because of him. Do you realize how silly that is, and what a complete inversion of cause and effect that is?
Modifié par David7204, 16 février 2013 - 09:29 .
#50
Posté 16 février 2013 - 09:43
CynicalShep
-
- Members
- 2 381 messages
@ David7204
Then this conversation is pointless. All lore-related conversations are pointless. A story is always written by a writer and everything starting with tropes and ending with the plot itself can be attributed to said writer. And you are putting words in my mouth. At no point in this conversation did I say that the writers "had no intention whatsoever of having the Reapers being defeated". In fact, I don't think I mentioned writers at all. You are derailing this "exchange", David.
And not all the predictable stories are of low quality but most low quality stories are predictable.
An assumption will always weight less than a fact. There are stories (in movies, games and books) that do not have a "happy ending". Having the Reapers defeated was always the most likely scenario but never the only possibility.
Then this conversation is pointless. All lore-related conversations are pointless. A story is always written by a writer and everything starting with tropes and ending with the plot itself can be attributed to said writer. And you are putting words in my mouth. At no point in this conversation did I say that the writers "had no intention whatsoever of having the Reapers being defeated". In fact, I don't think I mentioned writers at all. You are derailing this "exchange", David.
And not all the predictable stories are of low quality but most low quality stories are predictable.
An assumption will always weight less than a fact. There are stories (in movies, games and books) that do not have a "happy ending". Having the Reapers defeated was always the most likely scenario but never the only possibility.
Modifié par CynicalShep, 16 février 2013 - 09:44 .
