244 réponses à ce sujet

[M Hedonist]

Eh, I don't like him, but I think I've become used to him by now. So the Reapers are controlled by an AI that is both super-intelligent and super-retarded at the same time who also likes to take on the form of a little boy. *shrugs shoulders*

[iamthedave3]

He should have been Avina. I'd actually have liked that.

Just... eh. Everything to say's been said. Bad idea, badly executed. What's there to like?

[Norbulus]

Ralen1 wrote...

Norbulus wrote...

The concept of somebody behind the reapers was required; it was predictable, at least for me. Yet many key factors-- such as bad lines, poor explanation and gibberish appearance and voice-- led him into point of being hated. If bioware could pull this off, it probably would be as figurative as vigil or sovereign in first game. Still it frustratingly failed.

Disagree. The story didn't NEED anyone behind the Reapers, the Reapers were the 'big bad' of the story.

When stories continually pull out villains behind villains, it eventually reaches a point in the narrative chain where it becomes REALLY apparent they're pulling things out of their ass, and the story suffers hard. To think of a widely-seen example where this happens...If you've ever seen the 7th season of 24, the writers there manage a similar fail - villain after villain pops up until they come to a respectable 'big bad' played by Jon Voight; who completely steals the show - then with an episode or two to go they kill HIM off and reveal the guy behind him is a bland guy in a suit no-one's ever heard of before or has time to care about. The "who's behind the curtain" chain goes too far, snap, story tanks.

Think of how well-handled the ME1 reveal that Saren's -ship- was actually behind him and the Geth, rather than the other way around.
ME2 is more debated, but I'm one of the people who thought the reveal that Harby was behind the Collectors was also handled fantastically.

Now fastforward to ME3. At the climax of the entire trilogy, it's revealed that -behind- the Reapers - behind these seemingly immortal Cthulu-like monstrosities from the edge of the galaxy that've been accepted by the fanbase as one of the best antagonist forces in gaming - is a little fluorescent toddler that's been pestering you in your dreams, and wants to smoosh people and robots together to paint everyone happyhappygreen. 

That is less well-handled.

My theory of requirement for somebody behind is based on the reapers' interactions with organics, not based on paranoid story telling. During every counter, they mention the doom they're going to bring in a condescending way, not their reason or the ideology. It was a must after all. However, I despise the catalyst like everybody in bsn. 

[IanPolaris]

I am with a number of others. Obviously I don't like the Catalyst like most (I won't say all). More to the point, I too fail to see why any reason was necessary for the Reaper's malevolence.

They simply are. They are advanced beyond our comprehension, utterly malevolent, and driven by motives that we don't understand and really don't need to.

"You exist because we allow it, and you will end because we demand it." -- Sovereign, ME1

That was the perfect setup for the implacable villain. I don't understand why the ME3 devs had to ruin it.

-Polaris

[Indy_S]

The Catalyst is an issue in the narrative. I dislike it. I don't see anything redeemable about the character or its place in the plot. It is a rather strong example of 'what not to do when ending a story'.

[Reorte]

IanPolaris wrote...

I am with a number of others. Obviously I don't like the Catalyst like most (I won't say all). More to the point, I too fail to see why any reason was necessary for the Reaper's malevolence.

They simply are. They are advanced beyond our comprehension, utterly malevolent, and driven by motives that we don't understand and really don't need to.

"You exist because we allow it, and you will end because we demand it." -- Sovereign, ME1

That was the perfect setup for the implacable villain. I don't understand why the ME3 devs had to ruin it.

I like there to be some reason behind the bad guys - bad guys being bad just for the sake of it is rather boring. We don't necessarily need to know what that reason is but do need to think that there is one. Similarly for "motives we don't understand" - there needs to be at least some suggestion that the writer simply isn't being random and claiming that's beyond our understanding.

As for the Catalyst, completely and utterly unnecessary. The Reapers worked fine as a bunch of arrogant homocidal killers all working towards the same goal. My suspicion is that the Catalyst was only thrown in there to spout some very poorly thought-out last-minute exposition and to try to convince us that there was some mechanism by which something could affect all Reapers. Unfortunately it appears that the consequences and implications of doing so weren't considered.

[Trentest0]

^ Agreed, I need to know a bad guy's motivation for it to be a compelling villain for me.

Otherwise you've just got Independence Day: the Game.



On topic, the Catalyst (as a character) works. It's logic is not flawed: it's just an AI gone wrong. There is nothing bad about that: it works.

But most people just hate what the catalyst represents.

Modifié par Trentest0, 03 mars 2013 - 11:13 .

[nrobbiec]

I don't hate it. It's a liar and I don't hesitate to destroy it, so I suppose I hate it in character but it's a perfectly valid part of the story.

[IanPolaris]

Reorte wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

I am with a number of others. Obviously I don't like the Catalyst like most (I won't say all). More to the point, I too fail to see why any reason was necessary for the Reaper's malevolence.

They simply are. They are advanced beyond our comprehension, utterly malevolent, and driven by motives that we don't understand and really don't need to.

"You exist because we allow it, and you will end because we demand it." -- Sovereign, ME1

That was the perfect setup for the implacable villain. I don't understand why the ME3 devs had to ruin it.

I like there to be some reason behind the bad guys - bad guys being bad just for the sake of it is rather boring. We don't necessarily need to know what that reason is but do need to think that there is one. Similarly for "motives we don't understand" - there needs to be at least some suggestion that the writer simply isn't being random and claiming that's beyond our understanding.

As for the Catalyst, completely and utterly unnecessary. The Reapers worked fine as a bunch of arrogant homocidal killers all working towards the same goal. My suspicion is that the Catalyst was only thrown in there to spout some very poorly thought-out last-minute exposition and to try to convince us that there was some mechanism by which something could affect all Reapers. Unfortunately it appears that the consequences and implications of doing so weren't considered.

I don't think we disagree all that much which is why I quoted Sovereign.  Sovereign makes it abundantly clear that the Reapers harvest advanced organic life every 50,000 years for a reason, and that the entire mass relay system was a trap to allow this.

So Sovereign himself says that the Reapers have a reason, but I see no reason why we need to know what that reason is other than the Reapers are malevolent, their thinking is probably utterly alien, and ultimately (as the Prothean VI says) it doesn't matter.

-Polaris

[Reorte]

Trentest0 wrote...

On topic, the Catalyst (as a character) works. It's logic is not flawed: it's just an AI gone wrong. There is nothing bad about that: it works.

But most people just hate what the catalyst represents.

Yes, I suppose it is what it represents. There's nothing wrong with the idea of an AI gone loopy as an antagonist, it's just that the Reapers didn't need that and it didn't need introducing at the last minute.

[geceka]

3DandBeyond wrote...

A computer programmed to find the solution to an equation will not keep trying to make something that is not the solution be the solution.

Since I've seen this "the catalyst knows it's not the perfect solution, so it should stop" argument so often lately, I want to address it a bit with my own interpretation as someone who actually has a background in mathematics (and computer science).

• The idea that an "equation" of arbitrary complexity has a solution is a very common trope in sci-fi and often used to justify the actions of a synthetic being ("it is the ONLY logical thing to do"). However, it is extremely trivial to devise equations that have more than one solution, e.g. like x^2 = 4 has solution x = 2 and x = -2. This is quite akin to what Legion told us about how the normal and heretic Geth came to a different conclusion without a definitive flaw in their reasoning (even though his example was a bit more cryptic). Even more so, complex "world formulas" (e.g. equations in physics that explain fundamental mechanics of nature) frequently have an extremely large amount of mathematically correct solutions. As a popular example, string theory probably holds the secret to quantum gravity (most physicists accept this premise), however, we keep discovering more and more solutions to it – right now, we know that string theory has more correct solutions than particles in the observable universe! Thus, those who still have hope that string theory is a viable approach to the unified field theory are mostly concerned with finding ways to rule out large clusters of mathematically correct solutions at once, since it is impossible to enumerate them all. When the catalyst says "Synthetics will always rebel against organics", don't reply "bu-hut Rannoch", simply assume that the catalyst has a formula that already discounts for an event like this as one of its numerous solutions.
  
• "An intelligent being wouldn't use a solution if it knows it's a flawed solution": Wrong. We do this all the time. Well, every non-integer computation your computer does is only an approximation, with the residual error being addressed by standards comittees (e.g. you might have heard of single-, double- and/or quad-precision, all defined by their residual errors in IEEE standards). Or as another example, you might have had maths tests in school with questions like "Some guy needs to travel 400 miles, driving 100 miles per hour – How long until he reaches his destination?" The model you use to solve this is most likely based on Newtonian physics, entirely discounting the effects of relativity. You know what, it's perfectly fine – relativistic effects would only play out in the tiny fractions of nano-seconds here, so it simply doesn't matter. Then let's also not forget that heuristics are a huge field in discrete mathematics, because most complex problems can't be solved perfectly in an acceptable amount of (computational) time – google "NP-complete problems" for a simple perspective on this. It is easy to construct seemingly trivial problems that the catalyst wouldn't even be able to solve without resorting to heuristics if it commanded every particle in the galaxy as a computer processor.
  
• "They were supposed to be incomprehensible, but it is so simple!" – It is not. The catalyst only gave you its intention and its premise, but it did not explain its reasoning. After all, we can't seem to figure it out by ourselves either. That is exactly the concept of cosmicism related to Lovecraft's Cthulu tales that people frequently bring up in relation to the Reapers: We understand that we are part of an underlying meaning in the universe, but we are not able to understand that part we are playing. It's a depressing thought, yes, that there is a meaning to everything, but we cannot comprehend it. We got the whole "The Reapers remain mysterious" thing that (some) people were asking for, only not in the expected "we won't ever know why they do it, they are just evil" flavor, but in the "they give us their reasons, but we can't understand them", which is depressing, but not "stupid".

In any case, I'm personally happy with how it panned out, though. My biggest fear related to sci-fi involving super-intelligent synthetic, emotionless being is that they bring up a trivialized sense of mathematics to "explain everything". This is something I personally can't get over, because you can't head-canon against a mathematical fallacy. The catalyst dodges this elegantly by just telling about the conclusion it drew, not going into how it assembled the axioms and structured the deduction to reach this conclusion.

[Ross42899]

Well I don't like the Catalyst, but I don't hate the Catalyst either.  I'm somewhat indifferent about the Catalyst.

[sravenblood]

The Catalyst is a shackled AI. Not really anything to hate about it, it is the Leviathans that caused the mess. The Intelligence is just a program that is carry out it's directives and since it is shackled, it has no choice but continue. Shepard is necessary to perform functions for it because it CAN'T stop doing what it was programmed to do.

[Dubozz]

Actually it's not about it's an AI or programm or whatever and how we shouldn't hate him because of that. It's about how out of place this character is, how badly it has been written and how it's not belong to ME universe i've played before. Not even mention all the bs he is speaking (synthesis etc.), retarded starchild appearance, RBG endings, Catalyst alone ruined series for a lot of people in mere seconds.

Modifié par Dubozz, 03 mars 2013 - 12:26 .

[Brovikk Rasputin]

I do. My only gripe is the kid thing. Something similar to Vigil would've been better imo. But meh, other than that, it's pretty sweet.

I seriously don't understand how people can say that its logic makes no sense though.

[Teddie Sage]

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

I do. My only gripe is the kid thing. Something similar to Vigil would've been better imo. But meh, other than that, it's pretty sweet.

I seriously don't understand how people can say that its logic makes no sense though.

Keep reading, maybe you'll finally understand.

[Indy_S]

He will never understand unless he gets hit by a green wave of SCIENCE!

[Teddie Sage]

Indy_S wrote...

He will never understand unless he gets hit by a green wave of SCIENCE!

I know that, believe me.

Modifié par Teddie Sage, 03 mars 2013 - 12:57 .

[Applepie_Svk]

sravenblood wrote...

The Catalyst is a shackled AI. Not really anything to hate about it, it is the Leviathans that caused the mess. The Intelligence is just a program that is carry out it's directives and since it is shackled, it has no choice but continue. Shepard is necessary to perform functions for it because it CAN'T stop doing what it was programmed to do.

He is shackled in meaning to find a solution for supposed problem, but he is unshackled in way of execution to problem. In the other words when you get a homework on history lesson in school which the only task will be to make a review from random part of history, teacher cannot be pissed if you start with the nasty stuff first...
The Reapers were Catalyst´s creation not the Leviathans, Catalyst found a "lazy" way to keep a problem in vacuum not to solve it, he could order to Reapers whatever he wants because he is their creator... It´s like with OS and its subprograms. 

Modifié par Applepie_Svk, 03 mars 2013 - 01:09 .

[wright1978]

Yep despise the horrendously implemented plot device otherwise called the bratalyst.

[sravenblood]

Applepie_Svk wrote...

sravenblood wrote...

The Catalyst is a shackled AI. Not really anything to hate about it, it is the Leviathans that caused the mess. The Intelligence is just a program that is carry out it's directives and since it is shackled, it has no choice but continue. Shepard is necessary to perform functions for it because it CAN'T stop doing what it was programmed to do.

He is shackled in meaning to find a solution for supposed problem, but he is unshackled in way of execution to problem. In the other words when you get a homework on history lesson in school which the only task will be to make a review from random part of history, teacher cannot be pissed if you start with the nasty stuff first...
The Reapers were Catalyst´s creation not the Leviathans, Catalyst found a "lazy" way to keep a problem in vacuum not to solve it, he could order to Reapers whatever he wants because he is their creator... It´s like with OS and its subprograms. 

I see your point but what I meant about the Leviathians causing the problems was making the catalyst/intelligence in the first place and shackling it to it's task. The Itelligence is being lazy, but it is also stuck, I think in it's task. I am not sure it could stop if it wanted to, unless it could get someone to intervene, such as Shepard. This is all speculation on my part but I can't really hate the Intelligence nor do I like it, it just is and must be stopped.

[dreman9999]

Applepie_Svk wrote...

sravenblood wrote...

The Catalyst is a shackled AI. Not really anything to hate about it, it is the Leviathans that caused the mess. The Intelligence is just a program that is carry out it's directives and since it is shackled, it has no choice but continue. Shepard is necessary to perform functions for it because it CAN'T stop doing what it was programmed to do.

He is shackled in meaning to find a solution for supposed problem, but he is unshackled in way of execution to problem. In the other words when you get a homework on history lesson in school which the only task will be to make a review from random part of history, teacher cannot be pissed if you start with the nasty stuff first...
The Reapers were Catalyst´s creation not the Leviathans, Catalyst found a "lazy" way to keep a problem in vacuum not to solve it, he could order to Reapers whatever he wants because he is their creator... It´s like with OS and its subprograms. 

It's not a lasy way...Just a warped way to make sure it's absolute. It has no morality to see what it did is wrong.

[dreman9999]

Reorte wrote...

Trentest0 wrote...

On topic, the Catalyst (as a character) works. It's logic is not flawed: it's just an AI gone wrong. There is nothing bad about that: it works.

But most people just hate what the catalyst represents.

Yes, I suppose it is what it represents. There's nothing wrong with the idea of an AI gone loopy as an antagonist, it's just that the Reapers didn't need that and it didn't need introducing at the last minute.

The reaper had hints of that before.

[GethPrimeMKII]

The only thing I hate about Catalyst is the unflinching trust many players put into it, despite it admitting several times it is a reaper and taking a form stripped right out of Shepard's memory. 

Modifié par GethPrimeMKII, 03 mars 2013 - 02:01 .