506 réponses à ce sujet

[KaiserShep]

Vendetta should have been the one to greet us up there and explain our options. Only thing is, being a prothean VI, it would probably say "Ignore the blue and green things, commanda. Tell Javik I said wassup."

[Ridwan]

David7204 wrote...

Uh-huh.

So why does it bother you so much that it takes the form of a kid?

Cause Shepard, for some reason, can't get over the kid's death, so to really mess with him, he takes the kid's form.

[David7204]

Okay.

So do you have an explanation for why people frequency claim he should have taken the form of a dead squadmate? Is that not messing with Shepard and the player a hell of a lot more than taking the form of the kid?

Or is it just people on the BSN not knowing what they're talking about?

[DDK]

matchboxmatt wrote...

No one is ever going to say / has ever said that the star child was a good idea.

Right, 'cause no-one could ever disagree with you.

Oh wait, too late, I already did.

[Ridwan]

David7204 wrote...

Okay.

So do you have an explanation for why people frequency claim he should have taken the form of a dead squadmate? Is that not messing with Shepard and the player a hell of a lot more than taking the form of the kid?

Or is it just people on the BSN not knowing what they're talking about?

Cause it makes more sense, not that anything about the dumb ghost glowy thing makes sense, to have it take the shape of someone Shepard is more attached too than random kid he just saw in a vent.

And you'll find that most people, just want to get rid of the kid/catalyst/whatever all together.

[David7204]

So you're telling me it's a good thing for the player to be manipulated? Is that right? It's a good thing to have the leader of the Reapers, who has murdered countless trillions of people, to take the form of someone Shepard is supposed to trust? You think players would be happy about that?

And just to clarify, are players supposed to agree or disagree with this character?

Modifié par David7204, 06 mai 2013 - 11:30 .

[KaiserShep]

tickle267 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Uh-huh.

So why does it bother you so much that it takes the form of a kid?

well it doesn't help the fact that for the entire game we're forced to care about the kid and form an emotion attachment to him, and for some reason we dream about him as well, i mean seriously why don't we dream anout someone we actually care about?

To be fair, you do hear the voice of your fallen crewmember talking to you in the dream. In mine, I hear Ashley's last words on Vermire.

[Ridwan]

David7204 wrote...

So you're telling me it's a good thing for the player to be manipulated? Is that right? It's a good thing to have the leader of the Reapers, who has murdered countless trillions of people, to take the form of someone Shepard is supposed to trust? You think players would be happy about that?

And just to clarify, are players supposed to agree or disagree with this character?

You're strawmanning now. For the glowthing, yes, it makes sense for it to try and manipulate Shepard as much as it can, and therefor again, it makes more sense for it to take the form of whoever died on Virmire, since Shepard should be far more affected by her/his death than vent boy.

Players weren't happy about the fact that the Catalyst even existed in the first place (how often do I have to repeat this?). Glowboy being glowboy was just part of the many criticsm about him, one being that he should've have looked like Ashely/Kaiden.

Players can do what they want, but I doubt anyone in their right mind would agree with the kid.


Relevant picture.

Modifié par M25105, 06 mai 2013 - 11:36 .

[David7204]

It's not a strawman at all. It's logic. Making sense isn't good enough. It also has to be a satisfying story.

This is becoming irritating, because your requests are stupid and completely contradictory. Here's a simple freakin' question for you to answer:

Do you want the leader of the Reapers to be right or not?

Can you answer that simple question for me?

Modifié par David7204, 06 mai 2013 - 11:39 .

[Morlath]

KaiserShep wrote...

tickle267 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Uh-huh.

So why does it bother you so much that it takes the form of a kid?

well it doesn't help the fact that for the entire game we're forced to care about the kid and form an emotion attachment to him, and for some reason we dream about him as well, i mean seriously why don't we dream anout someone we actually care about?

To be fair, you do hear the voice of your fallen crewmember talking to you in the dream. In mine, I hear Ashley's last words on Vermire.

The way I saw it was that the kid was the final straw. The psychological scars of the past two plus years were finally breaking Shepard's mind (Joker mentions the stress Shep's body is under) and the Catalyst used the 'catalyst' of the breakdown as a way of still proving its superiority.

[Ieldra]

There's one thing wrong with the Catalyst:

The fact that the ending leaves many players with the feeling that "the evil god wins". We can't argue, we can't set our own conditions, we can't fight it. We are forced to go along with it unless we Refuse. We don't have real agency, we are the instrument of its designs. And this is the entity whose designs we'd been fighting all along.

I am not saying a story can't end this way. But to end this way and not leave players unsatisified, it needs to be convincing. The ending must connect naturally with the story that came before, and it absolutely must mitigate the entity's image as the "bigger bad" of the story. As I said in my of my first posts about the ending a long way back, if the ending has the potential to make people feel bad, it must convince the players of its merit. It must make them go "Hmm...I really don't like this, but it makes a great deal of sense" or if it's really good, go "Now it all makes sense!" Instead, when presented with the Catalyst's conundrum, we look back over the story we have played in three games, shake our heads and say "My experience does not support this assertion". The story fails to support the merit of the Catalyst's scenario and thus fails to mitigate its image as the bad guy. Thus, we feel that "the evil god wins".

That we can use our imagination to make things make sense does not nullify this flaw. Whatever the merits of the ending scenario are on its own - and as a pro-ender I think it does have significant merits - it fails to intuitively connect to the story that came before.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 06 mai 2013 - 11:47 .

[Morlath]

M25105 wrote...

"Thing needed something to trigger, a catalyst" "Ok... so like some kinda fuel or a final piece of gadget?" "No it needs a glowing genocidal ghost boy" "... what?" "Just kidding.. but seriously it needs something and we don't know what it is".

Like I said, no one expected that the catalyst was going to be the ****** kid, cause.. well we kinda expected better from Bioware than throw in some Contact reference boy (that film sucked by the way).

If you can solve a problem that appears unsolveable, I'd say you're pretty super duper powerful.

And about the lore, so where did the spacekid come from then and why did he chill in the citadel? The reapers coming from outside our known galaxy to feed on us every 50,000 years before entering hibernation (like a bear) makes more sense than some magical kid cooking them up with his wand.

You're aware of what a twist is in creative writing? Not everything has to be spelled out for game players from the very beginning.

The problem is only unsolvable if there is no Crucible. The existence of the Crucible makes sense. The fact that previous races understood the importance of the Citadel/Catalyst makes sense. The fact that the two pieces of equipment needs to be put together makes sense.

The Catalyst taking the form of a Catalyst and using Shepard's own voice(s) makes sense from a psychological warfare position. The trouble is that most people seem to either not want to put the mental effort into putting the pieces together or just wanted far more "big red button"-y.

[Ridwan]

David7204 wrote...

It's not a strawman at all. It's logic. Making sense isn't good enough. It also has to be a satisfying story.

This is becoming irritating, because your requests are stupid and completely contradictory. Here's a simple freakin' question for you to answer:

Do you want the leader of the Reapers to be right or not?

Can you answer that simple question for me?

I see your colours are showing.

Requests for what? You're again pulling stuff out of the air that doesn't exist. Again strawmanning. I didn't request for anything, what I wrote was that everything about the ****** kid is stupid and even so, since the kid exist it would make more sense to take the form of a former squad mate, cause of the emotional attachment.

And to your question, I want him to be wrong. But most of all, I want him to not exist.

[Ridwan]

Morlath wrote...

M25105 wrote...

"Thing needed something to trigger, a catalyst" "Ok... so like some kinda fuel or a final piece of gadget?" "No it needs a glowing genocidal ghost boy" "... what?" "Just kidding.. but seriously it needs something and we don't know what it is".

Like I said, no one expected that the catalyst was going to be the ****** kid, cause.. well we kinda expected better from Bioware than throw in some Contact reference boy (that film sucked by the way).

If you can solve a problem that appears unsolveable, I'd say you're pretty super duper powerful.

And about the lore, so where did the spacekid come from then and why did he chill in the citadel? The reapers coming from outside our known galaxy to feed on us every 50,000 years before entering hibernation (like a bear) makes more sense than some magical kid cooking them up with his wand.

You're aware of what a twist is in creative writing? Not everything has to be spelled out for game players from the very beginning.

The problem is only unsolvable if there is no Crucible. The existence of the Crucible makes sense. The fact that previous races understood the importance of the Citadel/Catalyst makes sense. The fact that the two pieces of equipment needs to be put together makes sense.

The Catalyst taking the form of a Catalyst and using Shepard's own voice(s) makes sense from a psychological warfare position. The trouble is that most people seem to either not want to put the mental effort into putting the pieces together or just wanted far more "big red button"-y.

This clever twist from what we've seen so far, has sounded more like them writing themselves in a hole and cooking up an excuse in the last second without even having their fellow writers peer review it. Blargh. And now you're going to call all of us, who called Bioware out on their copout DEM writing excuse as stupid for not "getting" it?

Lol. I'm done here, I can wait to see when threads pop out that's about how super awesome the kid is and that the Reapers are just misunderstood.

[Wayning_Star]

actually OP, the only reason the endings didn't 'seem' to work, as the fans didn't seem to work with it/them. There IS no actual ending, imho It seems that was the plan by the writers to create another never ending story... such is life..

[David7204]

tickle267 wrote...

David7204 wrote...
Do you want the leader of the Reapers to be right or not?

about what?

About the cycle. Do you want the Reapers to be the good guys or not?

Because I am tired of this contradictory nonsense. I am tired of hearing players shriek about how much they hate the Catalyst and want to kill him, and them go right on claiming that he should have taken the form of a dead squadmate to be more trustworthy! Do people seriously not grasp the problem with that?

Modifié par David7204, 06 mai 2013 - 11:55 .

[Ieldra]

David7204 wrote...

Do you want the leader of the Reapers to be right or not?

Yep, exactly that's the problem. Players might be willing to be convinced that the Catalyst has a point, but it needs to be really good at convincing to achieve that, and most notably, the story must support its points. Assertions players don't like which also fail to be conveyed by the story in a reasonably convincing manner will be rejected by the players.

Do I reject the Catalyst's scenario? Well, no, but that's only because I can imagine how it could make sense and assume that this is what the writers were going for. I'm using unpublished information and the axiom that all high-EMS endings aren't meant to be bad in any objective sense. While personally I don't mind the extra effort, as a rule players should not have to do that in order to get a satisfying ending.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 06 mai 2013 - 12:04 .

[Ieldra]

M25105 wrote...

Don't remind me how out of character my Shepards were. And they aren't even this cynical.

[Wayning_Star]

Ieldra2 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Do you want the leader of the Reapers to be right or not?

Yep, exactly that's the problem. Players might be willing to be convinced that the Catalyst has a point, but it needs to be really good at convincing to achieve that, and most notably, the story must support its points. Assertions players don't like which also fail to be conveyed by the story in a reasonably convincing manner will be rejected by the players.

Do I reject the Catalyst's scenario? Well, no, but that's only because I can imagine how it could make sense and assume that this is what the writers were going for. I'm using unpublished information and the axiom that all high-EMS endings aren't meant to be bad in any objective sense. While personally I don't mind the extra effort, as a rule players should not have to do that in order to get a satisfying ending.

I'm thinking that the/those writers were looking for the 'non satisfactory' ending. The star gazer scene pretty much proves that as canon. But mostly I just get the feeling that fans wanted Shep to live on, or have hard scenic reference of that eventuality. The star gazer just seems to allude to some, or another 'stuff' happening.. The End.

The most frustration is with Shepard in the rubble and the story pushing destroy up until the catalyst rains(or reigns, for the pun) on that parade.

[Wayning_Star]

Ieldra2 wrote...

M25105 wrote...

Don't remind me how out of character my Shepards were. And they aren't even this cynical.

comic book drama never fails to fail.. especially when the use of the word "cynical" is utilized to express cynical..lol

[David7204]

You know, if I could go back and change things, I would definitely like to give the Reapers a more solid motive. And I'd like to think players could handle such a thing.

I've been on here for months, and I've seen post after post after post simultaneously demanding and condemning the idea of the Reapers having a plausible motive. People shrieking at the idea of Reapers being anything more than unthinking monsters and then immediately shrieking that their arguments and motives weren't intelligent enough. People gleefully proclaiming how much they'd love to kill the Catalyst, then insisting he be made into a trustworthy ally.

I still don't have an answer I'm satisfied with. I still don't know what the core of this is.

I think I might just have to apply Occam's Razor and say that most people who argue about this are just idiots who don't know the hell they're talking about and are spouting nonsense.

Modifié par David7204, 06 mai 2013 - 12:31 .

[Wayning_Star]

David7204 wrote...

You know, if I could go back and change things, I would definitely like to give the Reapers a more solid motive. And I'd like to think players could handle such a thing.

I've been on here for months, and I've seen post after post after post simultaneously demanding and condemning the idea of the Reapers having a plausible motive. People shrieking at the idea of Reapers being anything more than unthinking monsters and then immediately shrieking that their arguments and motives weren't intelligent enough. People gleefully proclaiming how much they'd love to kill the Catalyst, then insisting he be made into a trustworthy ally.

I still don't have an answer I'm satisfied with. I still don't know what the core of this is.

I think I might just have to apply Occam's Razor and say that most people who argue about this are just idiots who don't know the hell they're talking about and are spouting nonsense.

I never spout nonsense..