112 réponses à ce sujet

[Bill Casey]

In the literal interpretation, the Catalyst is a DEM...
Shepard passes out from blood loss, and the Catalyst just lifts him up on an elevator and lets him use the Crucible...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 16 février 2013 - 09:53 .

[David7204]

That is exactly what you're saying if you're arguing that the Catalyst is the cause of the Reapers' motive and the resolution of the conflict from a meta standpoint. I'm not derailing anything.

Your very last post argued that the resolution of the conflict was an assumption. That we didn't know for sure. There's a stone-cold plain-as-day implication there that the writers might have had no intention of having the Reapers being defeated. So again, yes, you did say that.

You can certainly argue whether the Reapers would be defeated or not, but arguing that the Catalyst caused the Reapers to be defeated from a meta standpoint is ridiculous.

What exactly is the point you're trying to argue here?

Modifié par David7204, 16 février 2013 - 10:09 .

[PinkToolTheater]

The Eden thing is insanely boring and lame, it falls below the Catalyst. The whole "make him understand he is wrong" thing was like convincing a primitive calculator:
- You are wrong
- No I'm not
- Circular logic lol. You are wrong, bro.
- OMG selfdestruct.

[CynicalShep]

@ David7204

I think we're speaking different languages.

Well, what does me, the player, assuming that a conflict will have a positive resolution have to do with writers having no intention of having the Reapers defeated? You're making no sense. All I said was that we couldn't be 100% sure that the Reapers will be defeated. We, players assume that the story will have a predictable outcome. Writers know that outcome, because they write it.

From a game-world standpoint, if the Catalyst didn't activate the lift, wake Shepard up and explain him how to resolve the conflict Reapers would have won.

You shouldn't be talking about consistency, David. You're arguing for the sake of it. When we started I said that the Catalyst shouldn't have been revealed so late in the game. You said that he was not a DEM. And slowly and steadily we've been moving away from that. It takes two to tango and we can't do it if you're on a pedestal.

Modifié par CynicalShep, 16 février 2013 - 10:26 .

[David7204]

All I'm arguing is that the Catalyst is not a DEM because his existence does not resolve the conflict.

[CynicalShep]

David7204 wrote...

All I'm arguing is that the Catalyst is not a DEM because his existence does not resolve the conflict.

What solves the conflict, then?

[David7204]

The Reapers allowing Shepard to choose, fundamentally. But also the Crucible and the technology on the Citadel.

[shodiswe]

David7204 wrote...

All I'm arguing is that the Catalyst is not a DEM because his existence does not resolve the conflict.

Davids stance is similar to claiming the riflebut of a rifle isn't a rifle or that the oxygen atom of a water (H²O) molecule isn't water. When thigns are conected and form a whole there is no point in distinguishing one from the other because the catalyst is part of the whole. It's not a passive bystander, it's part of the DEM just as mob hit man is part of the mobgrou that emplys him and just as much a part of what he did as the people who ordered it.

The DEM would not exist without the Catalyst or a placeholder. This makes the Catalyst a part of a DEM and in essence a DEM by extension. Anything else would be like saying no, the riflebutt is not part of the rifle because, I made a headcanon where I removed it from the rifle and attached it to a fridge instead and it's now a fridgehandle!
This what you sounds like David.

[David7204]

Yes, it would exist without the Catalyst. It would just be Harbinger explaining things instead of the Catalyst.

[shodiswe]

David7204 wrote...

Yes, it would exist without the Catalyst. It would just be Harbinger explaining things instead of the Catalyst.

And then Harbinger would be part of the DEM!


You could also change the options given and it woudl still be part of the DEM! the componetns are interchangable but it makes no sense arguing about something which isn't the case.

The Catalyst in Biowares stroy is part of the DEM and therefor a DEM!

If they changed the informer to joker then joker would be part of the DEM and a DEM!

The possiblility of changing the writing of a story doesn't disprove anything.

The chocies woudln't exist if Shepard doesn't know about them. Shepard woudl jsut bleed to death on the floor, the galaxy would be harvested adn the cycle would start a new.

Modifié par shodiswe, 16 février 2013 - 11:02 .

[David7204]

It seems we agree that the Catalyst's existence as a character doesn't have any effect on the Reapers' motives or the resolution of the conflict. So this is just semantics.

[shodiswe]

David7204 wrote...

It seems we agree that the Catalyst's existence as a character doesn't have any effect on the Reapers' motives or the resolution of the conflict. So this is just semantics.

Which is why peopel can dislike the catalyst in the same way people have objections to Ashleys or kaidans looks or personalities. In adition to the DEM device that the catalyst represents.

One could like the DEM and hate the catalyst, or like the catalyst but hate the DEM or more likely as seems to be the case with these boards, hate both.

In the story they becoem the same but you can break it down t ocomponents and express dislike for certain parts of the design of the DEM. Like the informer which woudl be the catalyst, or the options given, othe the way you activated the options. or side effects of the options and other subcomponents. Even the story leading up to the DEM and how it fits.
The place holder of the function of informer which by design of the Bioware writers would be the Catalyst is the oen that tells us the true motives of the Reapers, it gives us the motives and provides us with the DEM that gives us a set amount of possible resolutions to the conflict even if it denies there is a conflict. Call that what ever you like.

It would be like turning your mom or dad into a talking banana, their function and who or what they are would still be the same jstu as the catalyst would still be the catalyst and the DEM even if you change it too look like harbinger or change the voice or voice actor.

People are what they do and think, not what they look like or what they sound like. And the catalyst is a DEM no matter what you polymorph it into as long as it can perform the same function say the same words. and determine the options available to Sheapard, even refuse falls under the same umbrella of options as the others.

Modifié par shodiswe, 16 février 2013 - 12:30 .

[DirtySHISN0]

I would have liked a large quantity of dialogue as with President Eden, but otherwise his character doesn't really fit the style of ending that ME3 needed - neither does the catalyst really.

[Tron Mega]

it should have been more like president camacho from idiocracy.

or thatd be about the same maybe.

[nrobbiec]

Well if the Catalyst was played by Malcolm McDowell I'd have listened to him, I always side with President Eden in Fallout 3. New Vegas (House) and Mass Effect I'm a compulsive good guy (apart from the genophage) but I'm always evil in Fallout 3.

[LeandroBraz]

CynicalShep wrote...

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. 

foreshadowing for you. First time I played, this dialogue made it clear for me that something had control over the reapers and was responsible for the cycles, and I was expecting that this thing would show up, which it did. 

[AlanC9]

CynicalShep wrote...

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.

Are we talking about the kid as a story element, or in-universe? If there's no kid, there's no platform either, and the Crucibke simply fires. Unless your argument is that the game would just have stopped right there.

Modifié par AlanC9, 16 février 2013 - 06:27 .

[cyrslash1974]

Well, in Fallout 3, the player could use a specific dialog giving him a chance to destroy Eden. In ME3, the player could ask Shepard to use a paragon / renegade dialog with the catalyst to show him how he's mistaken but...

When Shep meets the catalyst, he's not the player anymore.

[AlanC9]

shodiswe wrote...

People are what they do and think, not what they look like or what they sound like. And the catalyst is a DEM no matter what you polymorph it into as long as it can perform the same function say the same words. and determine the options available to Sheapard, even refuse falls under the same umbrella of options as the others.

Only under a very sloppy definition of DEM - one that would include the Death Star's exhaust port, for instance.

[AlanC9]

cyrslash1974 wrote...

Well, in Fallout 3, the player could use a specific dialog giving him a chance to destroy Eden. In ME3, the player could ask Shepard to use a paragon / renegade dialog with the catalyst to show him how he's mistaken but...

When Shep meets the catalyst, he's not the player anymore.

Because he can't engage in a futile argument, you mean?

[nrobbiec]

cyrslash1974 wrote...

Well, in Fallout 3, the player could use a specific dialog giving him a chance to destroy Eden. In ME3, the player could ask Shepard to use a paragon / renegade dialog with the catalyst to show him how he's mistaken but...

When Shep meets the catalyst, he's not the player anymore.

Why talk the Catalyst to death when you can blow it up?

[Ticonderoga117]

AlanC9 wrote...

cyrslash1974 wrote...

Well, in Fallout 3, the player could use a specific dialog giving him a chance to destroy Eden. In ME3, the player could ask Shepard to use a paragon / renegade dialog with the catalyst to show him how he's mistaken but...

When Shep meets the catalyst, he's not the player anymore.

Because he can't engage in a futile argument, you mean?

How would it be futile? You're telling the little bastard that he's wrong using examples. He would then realize that not only is he full of it, but he's been actively doign the worst thing possible.

Then you choose what to do with the Reapers. Kill them or control them, without Shepard needing to die like a moron.

[AlanC9]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...


How would it be futile? You're telling the little bastard that he's wrong using examples. He would then realize that not only is he full of it, but he's been actively doign the worst thing possible.

Then you choose what to do with the Reapers. Kill them or control them, without Shepard needing to die like a moron.

So the problem isn't that we can't play our character, the problem is that the Catalyst won't agree with our character?

That's not what he said the problem was.

Actually, this is just like the Refuse arguments pre-EC, when people said that the problem was that their Shepard's wouldn't use the Crucible, but what they really meant was that their Shepard should be able to win without using it. Thanks for clearing that up.

Modifié par AlanC9, 16 février 2013 - 06:45 .

[Ticonderoga117]

AlanC9 wrote...
So the problem isn't that we can't play our character, the problem is that the Catalyst won't agree with our character?

That's not what he said the problem was.

No, we can't play our character. We MUST do what the little insane AI says or act like a complete moron.

What I was saying there was that the chat could not be futile.

[AlanC9]

How is that not being able to play the character, though? The situation is what it is. Playing the character doesn't mean he gets options he likes.

Again, like Refuse

Modifié par AlanC9, 16 février 2013 - 06:49 .