112 réponses à ce sujet

[David7204]

Tell me, what exactly do you think Shepard should have done in that situation? What would you have done?

[Ticonderoga117]

AlanC9 wrote...
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.

When has Shepard ever bowed down to circumstances? He/She has always kicked circumstance in the face and won.

And now, at the end, the Reaper Head Honcho says we have to do one of three bad things, and Shepard just nods his head and goes "Yup!" or after deliverign a decent speech, sits around like a vegetable? Please! If this was the case anywhere else, the Reapers would've opened the Citadel relay and we'd all be dead.

[M Hedonist]

If anything, the Catalyst should've been more like The Master from Fallout. He even has a goal that is somewhat similar to Synthesis.

[David7204]

And that's terrible. But it isn't because Shepard is out of character.

[nickkcin11]

It still would've been nice to attempt to argue with the Catalyst, even if it wasn't able to persuade it. If I remember correctly, the EC kind of did this. But it needed to be done on a larger scale. Something where Shepard gives examples of all the contradictions to the Catalyst's logic. I think he does this if you choose Refusal (I never have so I'm not sure).

The Master from Fallout is really creepy. All his different voices and his grotesque appearance. However, I don't think Shepard should've been able to convince the Reapers to suicide... that'd be lackluster.

Just curious, does anyone have any explanations to the Reapers that you feel would've been better?

[TheCrazyHobo]

AlanC9 wrote...

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

I am curious to see what your definition of DEM is then.

Anyway, one of the most clear definitions I have found is "An unrealistic or unexpected intervention to rescue the protagonist or resolve the story's conflict."  So lets apply this to the ending of ME3.  After Shep confronts TIM, we see him open up the Citadel arms, and fall down next to Anderson slowly bleeding out.  After Anderson passes away, Shep realizes the severity of injuries and passes out.  He is awoken by Hackett on the radio stating the though the Crucible has docked, it is not firing.  We see Shep crawl forward in a confused state and then collapse and pass out again.  Suddenly an elevator appears and takes up to the bottom of the Citadel Tower where he is again awoken but this time by the Catalyst.  He is also restored to a "healthier" state of mind than he was when was with Anderson and makes his final choice.  

Allright, so Shep is dying and the Crucible is not firing then the Catalyst picks him up in the elevator, wakes him up, and apparently restores him to a state of mind that allows him to be more cognizant than he was with Anderson. If this is not an "unexpected inervention to rescue the protagonist" I don't know what is. 

Another important note is that a DEM describes an event that occurs, and does not describe a character.  So when people simply say "The Catalyst is a DEM" they are technically wrong.  They should be saying "The Catalyst was used as a DEM in one scene." 

[2484Stryker]

David7204 wrote...

Tell me, what exactly do you think Shepard should have done in that situation? What would you have done?

I think the point here is that it shouldn't have been written this way to begin with, i.e. Shepard shouldn't have been put in the same room as the Catalyst, or that the Catalyst shouldn't have existed in the first place.

The writers wrote the story into a corner so obviously if we complain about it then we must come up with an alternative solution within the confines of the writing, yes?  No way.

[Dean_the_Young]

TheCrazyHobo wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

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

I am curious to see what your definition of DEM is then.

Anyway, one of the most clear definitions I have found is "An unrealistic or unexpected intervention to rescue the protagonist or resolve the story's conflict."  So lets apply this to the ending of ME3.  After Shep confronts TIM, we see him open up the Citadel arms, and fall down next to Anderson slowly bleeding out.  After Anderson passes away, Shep realizes the severity of injuries and passes out.  He is awoken by Hackett on the radio stating the though the Crucible has docked, it is not firing.  We see Shep crawl forward in a confused state and then collapse and pass out again.  Suddenly an elevator appears and takes up to the bottom of the Citadel Tower where he is again awoken but this time by the Catalyst.  He is also restored to a "healthier" state of mind than he was when was with Anderson and makes his final choice.  

Allright, so Shep is dying and the Crucible is not firing then the Catalyst picks him up in the elevator, wakes him up, and apparently restores him to a state of mind that allows him to be more cognizant than he was with Anderson. If this is not an "unexpected inervention to rescue the protagonist" I don't know what is. 

Another important note is that a DEM describes an event that occurs, and does not describe a character.  So when people simply say "The Catalyst is a DEM" they are technically wrong.  They should be saying "The Catalyst was used as a DEM in one scene." 

In this case, though, neither the Crucible or Catalyst are suddenly introduced. The Crucible is a known unknown from the start of the game, while the Catalyst (the character as the hidden force behind the Reapers) is foreshadowed at Thessia. Even without the explicit mention in the DLC, the Catalyst doesn't intervene out of nowhere to resolve the plot: it's simply a foreshadowed exposition device that explains what the long-known Super Weapon actually does.

[cyrslash1974]

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?

I think peace Quarian - Geth or the fact that the Synthetics are fighting the reapers with organics is not a futile argument for me.

In fact, this peace is only for war assets, but should have more impact during the discussion between the catalyst and Shepard.

Maybe the catalyst was right in the past, but now this logic is false : he could be challenged.

[nos_astra]

And the exact definition of a DEM and whether it applies or not is important because ... what?

Modifié par klarabella, 16 février 2013 - 08:17 .

[AlanC9]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
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.

When has Shepard ever bowed down to circumstances? He/She has always kicked circumstance in the face and won.

And now, at the end, the Reaper Head Honcho says we have to do one of three bad things, and Shepard just nods his head and goes "Yup!" or after deliverign a decent speech, sits around like a vegetable? Please! If this was the case anywhere else, the Reapers would've opened the Citadel relay and we'd all be dead.

So the problem with the ending is that Shepard was magic all through the series, but in the ending he isn't magic anymore and circumstances don't rearrange themselves so he can get a result he'd like?

[AlanC9]

TheCrazyHobo wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

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

I am curious to see what your definition of DEM is then.

A last-minute solution to the major plot problem. The Crucible fails since it's obviously not last-minute. The Catalyst fails because his entrance makes things worse, not better. He doesn't solve any problems that his own entrance didn't introduce. Shepard falling unconscious and the Crucible not firing is there to introduce the Catalyst sequence; those scenes don't happen if there's no Catalyst

[AlanC9]

cyrslash1974 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Because he can't engage in a futile argument, you mean?

I think peace Quarian - Geth or the fact that the Synthetics are fighting the reapers with organics is not a futile argument for me.

In fact, this peace is only for war assets, but should have more impact during the discussion between the catalyst and Shepard.

Maybe the catalyst was right in the past, but now this logic is false : he could be challenged.

Sure. But Shepard being able to make an argument and the Catalyst accepting that argument are not the same thing.

Let's say Bio decided to put the challenge in but the Catalyst still doesn't listen. Does that make the ending better, or worse? Like I said upthread, this is the Refuse argument all over again.

Modifié par AlanC9, 16 février 2013 - 10:44 .

[Ticonderoga117]

AlanC9 wrote...
So the problem with the ending is that Shepard was magic all through the series, but in the ending he isn't magic anymore and circumstances don't rearrange themselves so he can get a result he'd like?

He doesn't even try! This is the end all be all moment, and Shepard surrenders.

[AlanC9]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
So the problem with the ending is that Shepard was magic all through the series, but in the ending he isn't magic anymore and circumstances don't rearrange themselves so he can get a result he'd like?

He doesn't even try! This is the end all be all moment, and Shepard surrenders.

So now we're back to saying that the problem is that Shepard doesn't make an argument even if it would be futile, eh?

Are you flipping a coin between posts or something?

Let me rephrase my question from a couple posts back. Let's say Bio had put in a big Shepard argument and the Catalyst handwaved it away --- something along the lines of "the geth hadn't reched the technological singularity yet. No synthetic race ever has, since we always start the cycle before synthetics can reach the singularity. Therefore, the geth example is not relevant." And then we're back where we were before.

Big improvement? Small improvement? Middle finger?

Modifié par AlanC9, 16 février 2013 - 10:49 .

[Ticonderoga117]

AlanC9 wrote...
So now we're back to saying that the problem is that Shepard doesn't make an argument even if it would be futile, eh?

Are you flipping a coin between posts or something?

Let me rephrase my question from a couple posts back. Let's say Bio had put in a big Shepard argument and the Catalyst handwaved it away --- something along the lines of "the geth hadn't reched the technological singularity yet. No synthetic race ever has, since we always start the cycle before synthetics can reach the singularity. Therefore, the geth example is not relevant." And then we're back where we were before.

Big improvement? Small improvement? Middle finger?

How is it futile? Is the Catalyst that ****ing stupid?! If it's so hot for new data, then give it some!

And if the Catalyst just hand waved it away like everything else, then it's a big fat middle finger saying "**** you guys and sit on this. We want our story to be full of BS and themes that don't fit. Enjoy surrendering!"

[AlanC9]

OK, so now we're back to you needing Shepard to be able to talk the Catalyst into admitting that this has all been a colossal mistake and surrendering. I'll assume that's your actual position from now on even if the rhetoric doesn't match.

As for new data, Shepard doesn't have any. There aren't any post-singularity AIs around, and as far as he knows there never have been.

Modifié par AlanC9, 16 février 2013 - 11:00 .

[liggy002]

mass perfection wrote...

 The Catalyst conversation should have been like this:   

lol, I remember that now.  Great game.  He tells him that he's delusional and he self destructs.  That should have been the refuse ending!

[liggy002]

David7204 wrote...

Because that would 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.

Fixed that for you.

[Ticonderoga117]

AlanC9 wrote...

OK, so now we're back to you needing Shepard to be able to talk the Catalyst into admitting that this has all been a colossal mistake and surrendering. I'll assume that's your actual position from now on even if the rhetoric doesn't match.

As for new data, Shepard doesn't have any. There aren't any post-singularity AIs around, and as far as he knows there never have been.

You're the one switching every time. I tell you how it's not futile, then you switch. Then I say how much BS that is, then it's back to the original point without saying how it's fuitle!

Make up your mind!

[liggy002]

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.

    No, remove the Reaper motive and replace it for something that makes more sense.  They have a sinsiter motive for doing what they do....  and also remove the Catalyst.  The whole thing was just stupid.

[CynicalShep]

So we're arguing semantics now? The Catalyst is not a DEM because he was vaguely foreshadowed by a questionable source who thinks the Reapers might not be in charge. Judging by your logic DEM are almost non-existing in story writing.

[Eshaye]

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.

You are right, on both counts. 

[AlanC9]

CynicalShep wrote...

So we're arguing semantics now? The Catalyst is not a DEM because he was vaguely foreshadowed by a questionable source who thinks the Reapers might not be in charge. Judging by your logic DEM are almost non-existing in story writing.

Of course we're arguing semantics. How else could the question of "is this a DEM" be resolved? If there was some practical value to the DEM concept we could see whether it made sense to put this thing in the category, but the category has no use so that isn't an option.

[CynicalShep]

@ Alan C9

Give me an example of a proper DEM