616 réponses à ce sujet

[Wulfram]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Things like this make me really think people don't understand the Catalyst.

I don't think Bioware understand the Catalyst.

[Dave of Canada]

Masha Potato wrote...

The main lesson of ME3 is to at least try to keep your **** thematically consistent. Duh.

What happens when the entire game is thematically inconsistent? Mass Effect series couldn't keep two themes together for longer than half a game.

[David7204]

Most of the complaints about the Catalyst are stupid. People saying that he's a Deus Ex Machina, for example. He isn't. People complaining that the fault was in introducing him in the last five minutes. Not true at all.

I suspect it's mostly just people instinctively hating him and struggling for a reason to justify it.

Modifié par David7204, 20 mars 2013 - 07:59 .

[David7204]

I've never had a problem with the Catalyst as a character, although I didn't like the endings one bit. I'm still not quite clear why people vehemently hate him so much. It goes beyond just blaming the faults of the ending on him. The Mass Effect forum is full of people who are incredibly eager to point out how stupid and wrong and illogical he is, and yet simultaneously seem to be very dependent on everything he says to the point of basing intricate arguments off of it.

[Bekkael]

HolyAvenger wrote...

TS2Aggie wrote...

I can confidently say that there are only two ways DA:I can possibly end:

1). The hero dies.
2). The hero "mysteriously disappears."

The former is far less likely than the latter, though.

 

Agree. These are the only two endings for a protagonist BioWare has served up in years. What was the last BioWare game with an unambiguously happy ending? Jade Empire?

God, I love Jade Empire. It was the first BioWare game I ever played, and I've been a devoted fan of every game they have made since then.

It would be so wonderful if they would make another stand-alone title like that.

[PrinceLionheart]

The lesson from ME3's ending is to not saying one thing and deliver something different.

[Wulfram]

David7204 wrote...

Most of the complaints about the Catalyst are stupid. People saying that he's a Deus Ex Machina, for example. He isn't. People complaining that the fault was in introducing him in the last five minutes. Not true at all.

I suspect it's mostly just people instinctively hating him and struggling for a reason to justify it.

A deus ex machina is a plot device
whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem is suddenly and abruptly
resolved, with the contrived and unexpected intervention of some new
event, character, ability, or object.

Shepard falls unconscious, unable to activate the Crucible.  Then the heretofore unknown Starkid sends a magic beam of light to rescue him for no established reason, and then tells him what to do to save the galaxy for indequately explained reasons.

Of course, it's different from most DEM's because it's contrived solution to a contrived problem that itself only manifested itself moments ago.  And then it lumps on another contrived problem.  So it doesn't benefit from the same goodwill for saving our heroes that, say, the Eagles get in Tolkien.

Modifié par Wulfram, 20 mars 2013 - 08:55 .

[David7204]

That is ridiculous. You can't split up the endgame into problems like that. For all the player knew, the Crucible would fire, destroy the Reapers, and that would be the end of it. The fact the Crucible didn't immediately fire therefore shouldn't be considered a consequence of the everything that happened before, it should be considered a consequence of what happens next - or rather, the elements that the player is introduced to next - that is, the Catalyst and the choices. The introduction of the Catalyst doesn't solve any problems. It just creates them.

Modifié par David7204, 20 mars 2013 - 09:06 .

[Wulfram]

David7204 wrote...

That is ridiculous. You can't split up the endgame into problems like that. For all the player knew, the Crucible would fire, destroy the Reapers, and that would be the end of it. The fact the Crucible didn't immediately fire therefore shouldn't be considered a consequence of the everything that happened before, it should be considered a consequence of what happens next - that is, the introduction of the Catalyst and the choices. The introduction of the Catalyst doesn't solve any problems. It just creates them.

Well, if you want to look at it that way, then it's a Diabolus Ex Machina.  Which is even less likely to be able to be pulled off satisfactorily, particularly at the end of a story.  Either way it's contrived and unnecessary.

Though I tend to seperate the crucible not firing from the Catalyst scene, probably because I think that bit is extremely well done, in contrast to what comes after it.  Maybe they should have just ended it with Shepard falling unconscious there - it would be a much sadder ending, but a better one.

[wright1978]

Of course the catalyst is a deux ex machina plot device and a poor one at that.
Introducing it in the last 5 minutes rather than integrating the endings into the narrative was an extremely poor decision. Can't really fathom how anyone can think that is good writing.

[David7204]

In 'epic' stories, the hero either knows how to defeat the villain right from the beginning, or he figures it out at the very end on the fly. You can't have things go according to plan, because if you do, the plan becomes a spoiler. That's something that people who write alternative endings have a hard time with. You have to keep introducing new information and new challenges right until the very end (or alternatively, don't reveal the plan to the audience, but that's rare and doesn't work for video games.)

Usually the hero defeats the villain in a single moment of great courage, skill, or willpower. Something like that. And I absolutely support such endings.

So yeah, the problem isn't that the Catalyst exists or there's a confrontation with him, it's that, primarily, there's no meaningful heroism at all to tackle the new problem. But also, as you said, that pretty much everything is poorly explained. That the choices come off as contrived. That player choices don't matter. And about a half-dozen other problems.

Modifié par David7204, 20 mars 2013 - 09:52 .

[David7204]

wright1978 wrote...

Of course the catalyst is a deux ex machina plot device and a poor one at that.
Introducing it in the last 5 minutes rather than integrating the endings into the narrative was an extremely poor decision. Can't really fathom how anyone can think that is good writing.

No. The Catalyst could have been easily replaced with Harbinger. He could take the same role, give the same information. And guess what? The endings would be just as bad as they are now. People would just be shrieking how much they hate Harbinger instead of the Catalyst. Clearly, the existence of the Catalyst as a character is not the core problem or anything close to it.

Modifié par David7204, 20 mars 2013 - 09:50 .

[Ridwan]

Just make the ending feel like you've accomplished something and give the option, before I get assaulted by the "real writing is mature and must have a dark theme and involve sacrifices" crowd, I wrote option, to a happy ending.

[AlanC9]

Wulfram wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Most of the complaints about the Catalyst are stupid. People saying that he's a Deus Ex Machina, for example. He isn't. People complaining that the fault was in introducing him in the last five minutes. Not true at all.

I suspect it's mostly just people instinctively hating him and struggling for a reason to justify it.

A deus ex machina is a plot device
whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem is suddenly and abruptly
resolved, with the contrived and unexpected intervention of some new
event, character, ability, or object.

Shepard falls unconscious, unable to activate the Crucible.  Then the heretofore unknown Starkid sends a magic beam of light to rescue him for no established reason, and then tells him what to do to save the galaxy for indequately explained reasons.

Of course, it's different from most DEM's because it's contrived solution to a contrived problem that itself only manifested itself moments ago.  And then it lumps on another contrived problem.  So it doesn't benefit from the same goodwill for saving our heroes that, say, the Eagles get in Tolkien.

If the definition of DEM is that loose then an awful lot of things are going to be DEMs -- I'm not sure how you could rule out any unexpected positive development.

I prefer a tighter definition myself. OTOH, the loose definition does seem to serve some function. Bad usages drive out good ones when there's no substitute

Modifié par AlanC9, 20 mars 2013 - 09:56 .

[wright1978]

David7204 wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

Of course the catalyst is a deux ex machina plot device and a poor one at that.
Introducing it in the last 5 minutes rather than integrating the endings into the narrative was an extremely poor decision. Can't really fathom how anyone can think that is good writing.

No. The Catalyst could have been easily replaced with Harbinger. He could take the same role, give the same information. And guess what? The endings would be just as bad as they are now. People would just be shrieking how much they hate Harbinger instead of the Catalyst. Clearly, the existence of the Catalyst is not the core problem or anything close to it.

Yeah that would just be using Harbinger as a plot device to deliver the endings which would be no better. The problem isn't specifically with the catalyst but with using a plot device such as him to deliver the endings. So yeah catalyst gets scorn because it is tangible aspect of the delivery mechanism that people can get their teeth into.

[David7204]

Yes, that's exactly right. The Catalyst gets the heat from fans' disappointment and frustration with the other parts of the ending. But it's important to recognize that. The problem is just that - the other parts. The ending isn't bad because a Reaper AI exists on the Citadel and isn't uncovered until the end. It's for a bunch of other, legitimate reasons, and one extremely serious reason in particular.

Modifié par David7204, 20 mars 2013 - 09:58 .

[David Gaider]

I think arguments about the ME3 ending should be done on the ME3 forums. Not here.

Unless you have something to tie it to DA3 really quickly, I'll lock this down.

[Wulfram]

AlanC9 wrote...

If the definition of DEM is that loose then an awful lot of things are going to be DEMs -- I'm not sure how you could rule out any unexpected positive development.

I prefer a tighter definition myself. OTOH, the loose definition does seem to serve some function.

Well, unexpected doesn't have to mean contrived.  Though contrived is a subjective term, and pretty much anything could be attacked as that.

If you don't consider him a DEM then I don't have too much problem with that, but there's at least enough grounds to call him such that I don't think that calling him that is stupid.

[AlanC9]

Wulfram wrote...

Well, unexpected doesn't have to mean contrived.  Though contrived is a subjective term, and pretty much anything could be attacked as that.

If you don't consider him a DEM then I don't have too much problem with that, but there's at least enough grounds to call him such that I don't think that calling him that is stupid.

Yeah, that's the problem. It's really hard to come up with objective definitions here. And not especially useful anyway. While I've sometimes gone full pedant on these issues, if something feels contrived to someone, he's not going to like it regardless of whether it's technically a DEM. Calling something a DEM is usually just a rhetorical move anyway.

I guess the question is how we tell an acceptable level of contrivance from an unacceptable level of contrivance. To use different ME examples (I trust Mr. Gaider will find this OK), I don't recall anyone ever being upset that Shepard always arrives at Ilos at exactly the right time to keep the game going -- neither too late to stop Saren, nor early enough to stop Saren from getting to the Conduit. And while I have seen some mockery of Tali's magic voice recording, it's mostly because the mechanics are preposterous, rather than because it's a DEM per se.

[Wulfram]

The hero arrives just in time is a contrivance, but it's a generally accepted one. Largely because it's more interesting than the hero arriving with a couple of hours to spare.

One of the oddities of DA2 is how it seemed to switch that convention instead to the hero usually arriving just too late, at least as far as saving people. I wonder if DA3'll switch back to the standard heroic "just in time"

[David7204]

Narrative causality and all that.

[AlanC9]

OK, so let's leave Ilos out of it. Why was that voice recording OK?

[Celtic man51]

I feel as though the storytelling aspect of DA:3 should stick to the DA:O semi open world kind of a story. Different areas should have their own story but also contributing to a larger whole. I think the ending should reflect these different parts of the story and I'm kinda sad ME3 neglected this. I will be happy if the ending has a strong resolution with closure and is not super bitter like ME3 was.