I'm really hoping Bioware will not pull anything at all like that, not just in DA:I, but in any game they ever do from now until whenever.
Modifié par Foshizzlin, 24 mars 2013 - 05:38 .
The Main Lesson of ME3 is to Give the Inquisitor a Happy Ending
Débuté par
Dasher1010
, mars 02 2013 06:25
#551
Guest_Snoop Lion_*
Posté 24 mars 2013 - 05:38
Guest_Snoop Lion_*
Guest_Snoop Lion_*
-
- Guests
Maybe that's more of what I wanted too Robert. In ME3, I was expecting "Hey, I beat the Reapers twice before, I'm gonna do it again. It'll be tough, but I'll do it". Maybe even having to sacrifice myself? Hoped not, but I kept going. It was the totally weird, out-of-place, ridiculously stupid "star child" character that threw me off and made me hate the ending so much.
I'm really hoping Bioware will not pull anything at all like that, not just in DA:I, but in any game they ever do from now until whenever.
I'm really hoping Bioware will not pull anything at all like that, not just in DA:I, but in any game they ever do from now until whenever.
Retour en haut
#552
Posté 25 mars 2013 - 09:31
Willowhugger
-
- Members
- 3 489 messages
I am with those who think that "unhappy endings" where the protagonist dies either because of self-sacrifice or because there's something innately evil in him that has to be destroyed are just plain dumb. I don't mind them as options but I want the "Alistair bakes you a cake" option.
#553
Posté 25 mars 2013 - 09:50
frankf43
-
- Members
- 1 782 messages
I don't want to invest 30-50 hours in a character just to see him/her killed off at the end of the game. I like hard fought happy endings.
#554
Posté 25 mars 2013 - 10:00
David7204
-
- Members
- 15 187 messages
Gee, it sure would be nice if people would stop blaming the existence of the Catalyst as the problem with the endings. Since that's complete nonsense, and misleading feedback.
#555
Posté 25 mars 2013 - 10:16
rekn2
-
- Members
- 602 messages
it has nothing to do with a happy ending and everything to do with replay-ability.i played me3a few times. me1 and 2 hundreds. the last thing i want from a BW game is to play it once and go "meh" and never pick it up again.
gaider said keep it da3 related? heres something related, i wont be preordering da3 until its decently reviewed...because of me3's ending. i want da3 to succeed. i want da3 to be amazing. i want to want to play it over and over. dont throw in some oblivion ending that cuts off the replay value entirely
gaider said keep it da3 related? heres something related, i wont be preordering da3 until its decently reviewed...because of me3's ending. i want da3 to succeed. i want da3 to be amazing. i want to want to play it over and over. dont throw in some oblivion ending that cuts off the replay value entirely
#556
Posté 25 mars 2013 - 10:26
Ageless Face
-
- Members
- 2 786 messages
Playing through my new favorite game of the month "Walking Dead", I realised my assumption about good ending for a games don't require it to be happy was correct.
So no, that was not ME3's lesson. What it did teach was to not rush. Well at least I hope that's what BioWare learned here.
I sincerely hope they didn't learn ending DLCs make people happier.
So no, that was not ME3's lesson. What it did teach was to not rush. Well at least I hope that's what BioWare learned here.
I sincerely hope they didn't learn ending DLCs make people happier.
Modifié par HagarIshay, 25 mars 2013 - 10:28 .
#557
Posté 26 mars 2013 - 01:38
Estelindis
-
- Members
- 3 699 messages
TL;DR version: DA:O's surprise reveal/choice with Morrigan is a bajillion times better than ME3's Catalyst.
Example of a twist that works: Morrigan's god-baby plot in DA:O. Yes, it comes out of nowhere, hits you in the gut, and forces a decision that can be influenced by your feelings about various characters and religion/history, a decision whose consequences are unclear at the time of choosing and remain unclear now. In a way, most of those things could be said about the ME3 ending choices, the exception being that while Shepard doesn't know what will happen when s/he makes the choices, in some endings s/he witnesses what comes about afterwards. However, there are other differences that, in my opinion, show how poorly the ME3 ending twist was implemented compared to DA:O.
While the choice came out of nowhere, Morrigan is a person who the player and the player character got to know over the course of most of the game. Sure, Shepard is haunted by dreams of the child s/he couldn't save on Earth, but that's just a form the Catalyst takes; it's not actually the Catalyst.
Depending on the protagonist, there could be a lot of agreement with Morrigan's view of the world and aims with the god-baby (even though she doesn't explain everything). Regarding what she keeps secret, one could choose to trust her based on shared love, friendship, or just respect for her magical abilities and knowledge. On the contrary, the Catalyst gives no reason for Shepard to trust it. If Shepard does choose to believe its claims about itself, then Shepard has an active reason not to trust anything else about it - why trust the being who engineered millions of years of misery and trillions of murders?
In terms of the choices actually given to the protagonist, in DA:O they can have wide implications but the actual decision is a very personal one: will I become a father of a supernatural child with an uncertain nature and future, or will I persuade someone else to do it, possibly someone I love? If I don't choose this, am I signing away the fate of myself, or a lover, or a friend? Depending on the choices of the Warden up to this point, there may actually be a very clear and obvious way forward: maybe he's in love with Morrigan and is happy to give her what she wants even if he knows she's going to try to disappear from his life, or maybe s/he spared Loghain so that he could help to fight the archdemon but is happy to let Loghain take the bullet and die at the end, so s/he doesn't want or need Morrigan's help. It is a situation that is incredibly different emotionally depending on a range of previous choices. It can be utterly torturous or a walk on the beach, but there is no right situation or answer; it's all subjective, all depends on the personality and situation of the Warden.
The same cannot be said of the Catalyst and the options that it presents. Shepard's past choices don't make a whole lot of difference: Destroy can be an easier decision if the geth are already dead, but that's basically it. Shepard can't even really choose Destroy out of a desire to survive and see her/his loved ones again because, while the player knows Shep can survive high EMS Destroy, Shepard doesn't. The Catalyst's words about Shep being partially synthetic actually imply otherwise. High/low EMS endings are the same across the board, to be honest, because while Shepard might guess that they could make a difference in the end, s/he doesn't really know. The Catalyst's space magic is such an asspull that s/he has no solid criteria for assessing the aftermath based on EMS, plus s/he is always bleeding and hurting sufficiently that making a clear decision is going to be tough in every scenario. In every situation that allows Synthesis, there is the lure that maybe, with Synthesis, the divisions separating people like EDI and Joker could be broken down. In every situation that allows Control, there is the warning that this is something that TIM thought made sense. If more refleciton of past choices had been allowed, then it might have been better, but in fact a Shepard who approved of Cerberus and TIM has has an experience fairly identical to a Cerberus-hating Shepard throughout ME3. TIM's fate has not really be affected by Shepard and as Shep makes the control decision her/his sense of what might happen based on interaction with TIM doesn't allow for much variation. That said: in the EC, Control does at least allow for paragon/renegade versions, which is at least some reflection of past choices.
To summarise: In DA:O, the Warden makes a choice based on her/his knowledge of and relationship with Morrigan and many other characters. Its ending builds on the protagonist's choices and emotional bonds. By contrast, ME3's ending casts those aside. The Catalyst simultaneously means nothing to Shepard (no established relationship) and gives Shepard no reason to trust it (involved in creation and control of the Reapers, so Shepard is pledged to thwart its purposes rather than fulfil them).
The only concession I will make in favour of ME3 is that it was wrapping up a story. The DA writing team has yet to show us what the purpose and nature of the god baby is, or what it might have been; they still have a lot of unrevealed mysteries. It's possible that, when put to the test, they might screw up the grand reveal as monumentally as whichever ME3 writers are responsible for the Catalyst. I don't think that will happen, but then again I never expected people responsible for so much Mass Effect story amazingness to produce the Catalyst either.
Every risk includes the possibility of failure, of course; it's not that I want writing teams to stop taking risks. It's more that I'd want the whole writing team to consult each other carefully and examine the big ideas before committing to something with huge consequences for the whole franchise. I believe that Bioware writing teams tend to do that generally. We've been assured that the whole ME3 team signed off on the ending and endorse it... I just find it really hard to believe. I don't like doubting people when I respect the majority of their work. It's just that I can imagine that it's natural to close ranks and support each other in the face of criticism for what they might see as the good of the team and the company. I'm not saying my assessment is right; obviously I am speaking at several removes from what happened. Anyway, whatever happened then, I hope that quality control will be high for DA3's ending.
The existence of the Catalyst, at least in the way that it exists in ME3, is my main problem with the ME3 endings, so it's the very opposite of misleading feedback to say so.David7204 wrote...
Gee, it sure would be nice if people would stop blaming the existence of the Catalyst as the problem with the endings. Since that's complete nonsense, and misleading feedback.
Example of a twist that works: Morrigan's god-baby plot in DA:O. Yes, it comes out of nowhere, hits you in the gut, and forces a decision that can be influenced by your feelings about various characters and religion/history, a decision whose consequences are unclear at the time of choosing and remain unclear now. In a way, most of those things could be said about the ME3 ending choices, the exception being that while Shepard doesn't know what will happen when s/he makes the choices, in some endings s/he witnesses what comes about afterwards. However, there are other differences that, in my opinion, show how poorly the ME3 ending twist was implemented compared to DA:O.
While the choice came out of nowhere, Morrigan is a person who the player and the player character got to know over the course of most of the game. Sure, Shepard is haunted by dreams of the child s/he couldn't save on Earth, but that's just a form the Catalyst takes; it's not actually the Catalyst.
Depending on the protagonist, there could be a lot of agreement with Morrigan's view of the world and aims with the god-baby (even though she doesn't explain everything). Regarding what she keeps secret, one could choose to trust her based on shared love, friendship, or just respect for her magical abilities and knowledge. On the contrary, the Catalyst gives no reason for Shepard to trust it. If Shepard does choose to believe its claims about itself, then Shepard has an active reason not to trust anything else about it - why trust the being who engineered millions of years of misery and trillions of murders?
In terms of the choices actually given to the protagonist, in DA:O they can have wide implications but the actual decision is a very personal one: will I become a father of a supernatural child with an uncertain nature and future, or will I persuade someone else to do it, possibly someone I love? If I don't choose this, am I signing away the fate of myself, or a lover, or a friend? Depending on the choices of the Warden up to this point, there may actually be a very clear and obvious way forward: maybe he's in love with Morrigan and is happy to give her what she wants even if he knows she's going to try to disappear from his life, or maybe s/he spared Loghain so that he could help to fight the archdemon but is happy to let Loghain take the bullet and die at the end, so s/he doesn't want or need Morrigan's help. It is a situation that is incredibly different emotionally depending on a range of previous choices. It can be utterly torturous or a walk on the beach, but there is no right situation or answer; it's all subjective, all depends on the personality and situation of the Warden.
The same cannot be said of the Catalyst and the options that it presents. Shepard's past choices don't make a whole lot of difference: Destroy can be an easier decision if the geth are already dead, but that's basically it. Shepard can't even really choose Destroy out of a desire to survive and see her/his loved ones again because, while the player knows Shep can survive high EMS Destroy, Shepard doesn't. The Catalyst's words about Shep being partially synthetic actually imply otherwise. High/low EMS endings are the same across the board, to be honest, because while Shepard might guess that they could make a difference in the end, s/he doesn't really know. The Catalyst's space magic is such an asspull that s/he has no solid criteria for assessing the aftermath based on EMS, plus s/he is always bleeding and hurting sufficiently that making a clear decision is going to be tough in every scenario. In every situation that allows Synthesis, there is the lure that maybe, with Synthesis, the divisions separating people like EDI and Joker could be broken down. In every situation that allows Control, there is the warning that this is something that TIM thought made sense. If more refleciton of past choices had been allowed, then it might have been better, but in fact a Shepard who approved of Cerberus and TIM has has an experience fairly identical to a Cerberus-hating Shepard throughout ME3. TIM's fate has not really be affected by Shepard and as Shep makes the control decision her/his sense of what might happen based on interaction with TIM doesn't allow for much variation. That said: in the EC, Control does at least allow for paragon/renegade versions, which is at least some reflection of past choices.
To summarise: In DA:O, the Warden makes a choice based on her/his knowledge of and relationship with Morrigan and many other characters. Its ending builds on the protagonist's choices and emotional bonds. By contrast, ME3's ending casts those aside. The Catalyst simultaneously means nothing to Shepard (no established relationship) and gives Shepard no reason to trust it (involved in creation and control of the Reapers, so Shepard is pledged to thwart its purposes rather than fulfil them).
The only concession I will make in favour of ME3 is that it was wrapping up a story. The DA writing team has yet to show us what the purpose and nature of the god baby is, or what it might have been; they still have a lot of unrevealed mysteries. It's possible that, when put to the test, they might screw up the grand reveal as monumentally as whichever ME3 writers are responsible for the Catalyst. I don't think that will happen, but then again I never expected people responsible for so much Mass Effect story amazingness to produce the Catalyst either.
Every risk includes the possibility of failure, of course; it's not that I want writing teams to stop taking risks. It's more that I'd want the whole writing team to consult each other carefully and examine the big ideas before committing to something with huge consequences for the whole franchise. I believe that Bioware writing teams tend to do that generally. We've been assured that the whole ME3 team signed off on the ending and endorse it... I just find it really hard to believe. I don't like doubting people when I respect the majority of their work. It's just that I can imagine that it's natural to close ranks and support each other in the face of criticism for what they might see as the good of the team and the company. I'm not saying my assessment is right; obviously I am speaking at several removes from what happened. Anyway, whatever happened then, I hope that quality control will be high for DA3's ending.
#558
Posté 26 mars 2013 - 04:17
Willowhugger
-
- Members
- 3 489 messages
Getting off ME3.
My take on the issue of happy endings is I want a 'satisfying' ending and that doesn't necessarilly have to be a happy ending. I'm okay with "Bittersweet" endings. I'll show you an example: Prince Bhelen. The ending for Orizmaar is that you put a NE son of a **** who is a kinslaying, murderer, and monster on the throne. However, that's a satisfying ending because the Warden got a choice (Harrowmount) and was able to make an informed choice between the two. Yeah, the Dwarves now have a terrorizing king but the trade-off is greater rights for the casteless and a chance for the future to turn out better.
But it's not *JUST* happiness that's the issue. I also want a sense of COMPLETION from the game. Dragon Age 2 did not feel like Hawke's story was complete. It felt like the middle part of a trilogy. Hawke has successfully won the first battle of the Templar-Mage war.
Then what?
I want the ending of Dragon Age 3 to give a satisfactory closing out on all the characters. The Warden retired with Leliana to wander the world, became King of Fereldan, and so on. Hawke SHOULD have had an ending slide which said, "And Hawke became Viscount of Fereldan or went on to fight the Mage-Templar war as its leader."
Something like that.
My take on the issue of happy endings is I want a 'satisfying' ending and that doesn't necessarilly have to be a happy ending. I'm okay with "Bittersweet" endings. I'll show you an example: Prince Bhelen. The ending for Orizmaar is that you put a NE son of a **** who is a kinslaying, murderer, and monster on the throne. However, that's a satisfying ending because the Warden got a choice (Harrowmount) and was able to make an informed choice between the two. Yeah, the Dwarves now have a terrorizing king but the trade-off is greater rights for the casteless and a chance for the future to turn out better.
But it's not *JUST* happiness that's the issue. I also want a sense of COMPLETION from the game. Dragon Age 2 did not feel like Hawke's story was complete. It felt like the middle part of a trilogy. Hawke has successfully won the first battle of the Templar-Mage war.
Then what?
I want the ending of Dragon Age 3 to give a satisfactory closing out on all the characters. The Warden retired with Leliana to wander the world, became King of Fereldan, and so on. Hawke SHOULD have had an ending slide which said, "And Hawke became Viscount of Fereldan or went on to fight the Mage-Templar war as its leader."
Something like that.
#559
Posté 26 mars 2013 - 04:25
Iakus
-
- Members
- 30 309 messages
Willowhugger wrote...
Getting off ME3.
My take on the issue of happy endings is I want a 'satisfying' ending and that doesn't necessarilly have to be a happy ending. I'm okay with "Bittersweet" endings. I'll show you an example: Prince Bhelen. The ending for Orizmaar is that you put a NE son of a **** who is a kinslaying, murderer, and monster on the throne. However, that's a satisfying ending because the Warden got a choice (Harrowmount) and was able to make an informed choice between the two. Yeah, the Dwarves now have a terrorizing king but the trade-off is greater rights for the casteless and a chance for the future to turn out better.
But it's not *JUST* happiness that's the issue. I also want a sense of COMPLETION from the game. Dragon Age 2 did not feel like Hawke's story was complete. It felt like the middle part of a trilogy. Hawke has successfully won the first battle of the Templar-Mage war.
Then what?
I want the ending of Dragon Age 3 to give a satisfactory closing out on all the characters. The Warden retired with Leliana to wander the world, became King of Fereldan, and so on. Hawke SHOULD have had an ending slide which said, "And Hawke became Viscount of Fereldan or went on to fight the Mage-Templar war as its leader."
Something like that.
I should also add:
An RPG is not a movie. Nor is it a book. Or even a tv show. It's a role-playing game. There shouldn't be one set conclusion, however satisfactory (or not). Even DA2 at least had two outcomes for Hawke (viscount or exile) before the disappearing act.
#560
Posté 26 mars 2013 - 04:30
Willowhugger
-
- Members
- 3 489 messages
I understand the problems with filming 15 different cutscenes. I'm also entirely okay with the "Text Epilogue" and don't think any fans aren't.
#561
Posté 26 mars 2013 - 04:41
Iakus
-
- Members
- 30 309 messages
Willowhugger wrote...
I understand the problems with filming 15 different cutscenes. I'm also entirely okay with the "Text Epilogue" and don't think any fans aren't.
I'm fine with text epilogues.
I'm also fine with 3-4 basic endings with varying details, as long as they really are different from each other: more differnt than "choose your atrocity" and certainly not all ending with "and then the hero died (or did he?)"
They don't all have to end with "and then the hero lived happilly ever after" either.
#562
Posté 26 mars 2013 - 04:48
Willowhugger
-
- Members
- 3 489 messages
I'm fine with text epilogues.
I'm also fine with 3-4 basic endings with varying details, as long as they really are different from each other: more differnt than "choose your atrocity" and certainly not all ending with "and then the hero died (or did he?)"
They don't all have to end with "and then the hero lived happilly ever after" either.
When I first played Dragon Age: Origins I played a corrupt jerk who, nevertheless, encouraged Alistair and Leliana to be good. In the end, Alistair ended up getting made into a drunk and Leliana went off to rejoin Majoraine. Mistakes should be possible in the ending but I don't like "enforced helplessness." Basically, imagine you slaughtered like 400 bad guys and then the game has you suddenly killed in a cutscene. I doubt that will happen but I am okay with the PCs actions turning out horrible as long as the ending follows from what we know.
Shianni getting murdered by a human bigot followed by elven riots is something that I don't think City Elf Warden players would *LIKE* but they'd nod their head to as saying is LIKELY.
#563
Posté 26 mars 2013 - 06:40
David7204
-
- Members
- 15 187 messages
Estelindis wrote...
TL;DR version: DA:O's surprise reveal/choice with Morrigan is a bajillion times better than ME3's Catalyst.David7204 wrote...
Gee, it sure would be nice if people would stop blaming the existence of the Catalyst as the problem with the endings. Since that's complete nonsense, and misleading feedback.
The existence of the Catalyst, at least in the way that it exists in ME3, is my main problem with the ME3 endings, so it's the very opposite of misleading feedback to say so...
I don't know how many goddamn times I'm going to have to repeat this. The Catalyst a character. A character. Not a plot. Not a motive. A character. The existence of the Catalyst, the Reaper motive, and the choices presented are not the same thing!
The Catalyst could easily could have been replaced with Harbinger, who could have said the exact same things and offered the exact same options. And it would not have made one bit of difference. The endings would still be exactly as they are now, just with people shrieking how stupid Harbinger is instead of how stupid the Catalyst is.
Look at this. The Catalyst is gone, and all of the problems remain! So clearly, the Catalyst cannot be the problem with the endings, can he? The existence of the Catalyst does not equal the existence of every other problem with the endings.
Modifié par David7204, 26 mars 2013 - 06:45 .
#564
Posté 26 mars 2013 - 06:48
Willowhugger
-
- Members
- 3 489 messages
The Catalyst as shorthand for, "This whole build up to the final ten minutes."
#565
Posté 26 mars 2013 - 06:49
David7204
-
- Members
- 15 187 messages
Then it's a pointless term. If the Catalyst is shorthand for "the last ten minutes," then it's useless as feedback. That's just saying "The problem with the ending is the ending"
#566
Posté 26 mars 2013 - 06:58
Willowhugger
-
- Members
- 3 489 messages
David7204 wrote...
Then it's a pointless term. If the Catalyst is shorthand for "the last ten minutes," then it's useless as feedback. That's just saying "The problem with the ending is the ending"
Yeah, but the thing is a lot of people think the build-up to the ending is a problem too. A lot of people really think the games were building up to "gather allies" and there was no need for a Maguffin Reaper-killer. I have talked about ME3 to death, though, so I'm going to drop out of this conversation.
#567
Posté 26 mars 2013 - 07:04
David7204
-
- Members
- 15 187 messages
Are there problems with the Crucible? Absolutely. There are very serious problems.
But are there fundamentally problems with an unconventional victory? No.
There's been debates up and down whether conventional victory is possible or not. Personally, I think it is. I think it would be possible with hard science and tactics, meaningful heroism, and choices that matter. But only for a 'perfect' or 'near-perfect 'playthrough. There is simply no way conventional victory would be possible for a Shepard who is a complete screw-up and has lost half the galaxy by the end of ME 3. Nor is it acceptable to have a conventional victory for a 'perfect' playthough and a complete failure ending for everyone else.
Thus, some kind of unconventional victory is necessary.
But are there fundamentally problems with an unconventional victory? No.
There's been debates up and down whether conventional victory is possible or not. Personally, I think it is. I think it would be possible with hard science and tactics, meaningful heroism, and choices that matter. But only for a 'perfect' or 'near-perfect 'playthrough. There is simply no way conventional victory would be possible for a Shepard who is a complete screw-up and has lost half the galaxy by the end of ME 3. Nor is it acceptable to have a conventional victory for a 'perfect' playthough and a complete failure ending for everyone else.
Thus, some kind of unconventional victory is necessary.
Modifié par David7204, 26 mars 2013 - 07:09 .
#568
Posté 26 mars 2013 - 07:15
Iakus
-
- Members
- 30 309 messages
David7204 wrote...
Then it's a pointless term. If the Catalyst is shorthand for "the last ten minutes," then it's useless as feedback. That's just saying "The problem with the ending is the ending"
The Catalyst is the focal point, the representation, if you will, of what's wrong with ME3's ending (not necessarilly the game itself, but the ending)
It's the whole buildup of the game suddenly being rendered pointless, reduced to a single choice
It's the ideals by which you fight for suddenly being untenable
It's the inability to "win" on your own terms, and having to seek permission from a greater power
It's the thematic similarity of all the endings, even if the details are different.
It's last minute exposition adding a new angle to the game at literally the last moment, with little/no forshadowing
The Catalyst is the representation of all this. So the Catalst makes a handy, if imprecise, shorthand
Modifié par iakus, 26 mars 2013 - 07:20 .
#569
Posté 26 mars 2013 - 07:24
David7204
-
- Members
- 15 187 messages
That's a fair point. But it doesn't justify claiming the ending is bad because 'a new villain is introduced in the last 10 minutes' or whatever.
#570
Posté 26 mars 2013 - 07:27
Iakus
-
- Members
- 30 309 messages
David7204 wrote...
That's a fair point. But it doesn't justify claiming the ending is bad because 'a new villain is introduced in the last 10 minutes' or whatever.
Like I said, it's not just the new villain (though that's bad enough) it's all the baggage that came with him that turns the story completely on its head. The Catalyst is the symbol for that...badness...
#571
Posté 26 mars 2013 - 07:32
David7204
-
- Members
- 15 187 messages
Okay, we need to make this clear. The existence of a Reaper AI on the Citadel is not a problem. At all. It's completely within the heavily established methods of the Reapers and foreshadowed by the ambiguity of the Citadel itself.
#572
Posté 26 mars 2013 - 07:39
Wulfram
-
- Members
- 18 948 messages
David7204 wrote...
Okay, we need to make this clear. The existence of a Reaper AI on the Citadel is not a problem. At all. It's completely within the heavily established methods of the Reapers and foreshadowed by the ambiguity of the Citadel itself.
It fits poorly with the plot of ME1, which relies on the Reapers being unable to control the Citadel. And it's a stupid way to introduce your final choices.
#573
Posté 26 mars 2013 - 07:45
David7204
-
- Members
- 15 187 messages
A confrontation with the antagonist is a stupid way to end the game?
That's a seperate issue. The fact that the Catalyst exists on the Citadel isn't the issue with the claims of it being a DEM. It could have just been another Reaper. Or it could have been an avatar of Harbinger to speak to Shepard in a familiar form. Or it could have been a hallucination like the conversation with Leviathan. The point is that the Catalyst is not a 'new' villain in any meaningful sense. The fact that one Reaper AI instead of another explains things to you doesn't mean much.
That's a seperate issue. The fact that the Catalyst exists on the Citadel isn't the issue with the claims of it being a DEM. It could have just been another Reaper. Or it could have been an avatar of Harbinger to speak to Shepard in a familiar form. Or it could have been a hallucination like the conversation with Leviathan. The point is that the Catalyst is not a 'new' villain in any meaningful sense. The fact that one Reaper AI instead of another explains things to you doesn't mean much.
Modifié par David7204, 26 mars 2013 - 07:49 .
#574
Posté 26 mars 2013 - 07:47
Il Divo
-
- Members
- 9 768 messages
Wulfram wrote...
David7204 wrote...
Okay, we need to make this clear. The existence of a Reaper AI on the Citadel is not a problem. At all. It's completely within the heavily established methods of the Reapers and foreshadowed by the ambiguity of the Citadel itself.
It fits poorly with the plot of ME1, which relies on the Reapers being unable to control the Citadel. And it's a stupid way to introduce your final choices.
It also doesn't help that the Reapers magically retake the Citadel when the plot demands it while Shepard is on Cronos Station.
#575
Posté 26 mars 2013 - 07:54
Wulfram
-
- Members
- 18 948 messages
David7204 wrote...
A confrontation with the antagonist is a stupid way to end the game?
There's no confrontation. The Catalyst only serves to exposit and to offer the player the Choice. This is a role better served by someone people don't have every reason to distrust and hate.
If there was a confrontation, it would be more satisfying to have it with an established "face" of the reapers - whether Harby or someone else who'd been established during ME3. Preferably one who isn't given the form of that boy for no discernible reason.
