606 réponses à ce sujet

[David7204]

Let me ask you a simple question.

Do you want the Catalyst to be right?

Do you want him to have a motive that a reasonable player would consider at least somewhat legitimate?

[David7204]

And why is the Catalyst a bad idea?

[David7204]

I've been on this forum for 15 months. I've seen ever complaint there is. I've seen countless threads shrieking about the Catalyst, countless arguments against him. And they're nonsense. They're clearly the result of players instinctively hating him and trying to clumsily justify that hate somehow.

I hated the endings. I still do. But I never had an issue with the Catalyst.

Ultimately, I think it might boil down to players simply being incapable of recognizing that the Catalyst and the ending are different things. I've seen so many posts of players gleefully fantasizing about the Catalyst being gone as if his replacement would somehow make the ending great. Complete nonsense, of course. It wouldn't. It would have been incredibly easy to replace the Catalyst with Harbinger, and all of the problems with the ending would remain.

Modifié par David7204, 15 juin 2013 - 08:21 .

[Redbelle]

txgoldrush wrote...

Because they fail to even pinpoint the central conflict, especially with the Catalyst.

The ending is NOT about organics and synthetics, its about sacrifice.

Why?

Because that's what the central conflict revolves around. In fact, organics and synthetics theme only matters in the synthesis ending. The central conflict is one of METHOD not MOTIVE. In fact, Shepard really doesn't argue to the motives, he argues against his methods. This is why you can't go...."well, Starchild, geth and quarian peace can prove you wrong" because that simply is not the conflict Shepard has with him, the conflict is his cycle.

Also, the TIM conflict is not about destroying the Reapers or controlling them (although it can be with a Paragon) its about once again, not only his methods, but that they are counterproductive (as well as he is indoctrinated).

This is the protagonist and antagonist conflict.......the protagonist is willing to sacrifice himself or herself to preserve the galaxy and the ones they love, and call for others to sacrifice not without thought or feeling. The antagonists, both TIM and the Catalyst, ruthlessly sacrifice lives to pursue their goals and motives, with no thought whatsoever. THIS IS THE CONFLICT. And the entire Catalyst conversation shows the Catalyst's character flaw, he simply doesn't truly understand organics and their are hints of this throughout the conversation, especially if Shepard dissents some of the choices.

This is the central conflict not only of the ending, not only of Mass Effect 3, but the entire trilogy. But nope, BSNers don't recognize the obvious, harping on the Catalyst's motives while completely ignoring Shepards arguments in the end. Nevermind the Catalyst's creation strikes at the heart another theme, people are willing to create or harness things that they do not understand to pursue their goals and solutions to problems, backfiring due to lack of understanding.

This is why Shepard had to sacrifice to fire the Crucible, the themes define him as such.

So when anti enders say that the themes of the ending come out of nowhere, they really do not get it.

<Facepalm>

I cannot believe that the entire trilogy was created with the sole intent of setting up 'the sacrifice'.

The trilogy was created to offer alternative paths that highlight the player Avatar's preferred playstyle. Be it a noble soldier, dirty Harry, or somewhere inbetween.

Yes, the point of the conversation with the Catalyst is lost to a degree, but this does not signal that the fans were not engaged.

It signals that the developer suffered a fundamanental narrative disconnect with his target audience.

All three games were not 'about' sacrifice. They were adventure yarns that had moments of sacrifice. Because a well portrayed sacrifice in a narrative is a powerful tool.

The OP seems to be trying to to swing the discussion into a small aspect of the problem with the ending, rather than stepping back and looking at the bigger picture of how the narrative stylisation drastically changed along with the gameplay. This is not in itself a bad thing.

It's generally only bad if the change in narrative and gameplay leaves the player feeling isolated from the story. Not an integral part of it.

[Redbelle]

David7204 wrote...

And why is the Catalyst a bad idea?

When the Virmire victim died setting off the bomb, people had to stop and think about who to save and who to die.

This was because they had done two things.

1. They had gotten to know the characters, and decided they wanted to know more about them i the future.

2. They had assumed that being a gmae, the characters would always be there.

Now imagine the Catalyst is one of the two people you could leave behind.

Do you have the same grounding in the character to choose him to survive over the other?

Course not. His 10 minutes of fame lend the character nothing to suggest he could be a 'character'. It is instead, an info dump device, made to convey vast quantities of information in a short a time window as possible.

This in a character driven narrative. Dropping the Catalyst in at the last minute with no foreshadowing as to what he is or how he is, what he plans for the future, what he thgouht about events in the past. It's all meaningless to the Catalsyt.

You have to recognise that the Catalyst was develoed by a AAA game developer and as a character, it fails to convince on that front. Instead, being an amalagam of different entites that raises questions as to what it is. And raising these new questions, while throwing information at the player, in the end phase of a game where all these plot strands should be nealty tied up and filed away is bad form as a Writer.

For a writer to do this signals that the story has gotten away from them so that the creator does not understand how to convey what the theme of the story was. Or, it is a sign of disrespect to the story and the reader, in that the writer did not want to, or was unable to put in the time to develop a coherent end to the story.

If a player or reader is going to invest time into a story it signals a placement of trust in the writer to carry the reader along with them. The Catalyst acted as a barrier to the reader while the writer pressed on, unaware that he had dropped the reader's off behind him.

That's the problem

Modifié par Redbelle, 15 juin 2013 - 08:38 .

[David7204]

Do you think there's going to be any reason good enough to justify the Reapers ending quintillions of lives?

[David7204]

Redbelle wrote...

David7204 wrote...

And why is the Catalyst a bad idea?

When the Virmire victim died setting off the bomb, people had to stop and think about who to save and who to die.

This was because they had done two things.

Now imagine the Catalyst is one of the two people you could leave behind.

Do you have the same grounding in the character to choose him to survive over the other?

Course not. His 10 minutes of fame lend the character nothing to suggest he could be a 'character'. It is instead, an info dump device, made to convey vast quantities of information in a short a time window as possible.

This in a character driven narrative. Dropping the Catalyst in at the last minute with no foreshadowing as to what he is or how he is, what he plans for the future, what he thgouht about events in the past. It's all meaningless to the Catalsyt.

You have to recognise that the Catalyst was develoed by a AAA game developer and as a character, it fails to convince on that front. Instead, being an amalagam of different entites that raises questions as to what it is. And raising these new questions, while throwing information at the player, in the end phase of a game where all these plot strands should be nealty tied up and filed away is bad form as a Writer.

For a writer to do this signals that the stroy has gotten away from them so that the creator does not understand how to convey what the theme of the stroy was. Or, it is a sign of disrespect to the story and the reader, in that the writer did not want to, or was unable to put in the time to develop a coherent end to the story.

If a player or reader is going to invest time into a story it signals a placement of trust in the writer to carry the reader along with them. The Catalyst acted as a barrier to the reader while the writer pressed on, unaware that he had dropped the reader's off behind him.

That's the problem

There was plenty of foreshadowing.

It should have been clear to every player that the Reapers had soome sort of motive all the way back in ME 1. If they didn't expect that, they just weren't thinking.

Likewise, there's been plenty of foreshadowing of the Reapers leaving 'booby traps' behind. Of hiding things. Of the Citadel having functions not yet revealed.

The Catalyst is not a 'new' character in any meaningful sense. He's a voice of the Reapers. And I don't really see what question there is about him at all. He's the AI controller of the Reapers who resides on the Citadel and takes an avatar of the kid.

Besides, if your argument was true, why is the conversation with Vigil in ME 1 accepted and liked? He's also basically an info dump.

Modifié par David7204, 15 juin 2013 - 08:42 .

[David7204]

Do you know what a villain is?

It's someone who, by definition, isn't justified in their actions. Otherwise they wouldn't be a villain.

Modifié par David7204, 15 juin 2013 - 08:45 .

[David7204]

Let me ask you this once more.

Do you want the Reapers to be right, or do you want them to be wrong?

[David7204]

Fandango9641 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Do you think there's going to be any reason good enough to justify the Reapers ending quintillions of lives?

They shouldn't have attempted to justify a thing and instead allowed us to combat the threat of the Reapers in a way that didn't demand compliance, ignorance and a massive act of arbitrary violence.

This story has been built around violence since the beginning. That's what Shepard does. S/he kills people.

As for compliance? If you're compelled to disagree with your enemy just because they're enemy, you're a fool, and you're every bit as much as much as a slave as someone who obey's their enemy's every word. What happens when the Catalyst says 2+2 = 4? Do you say it equals 5 just to spite him?

As for ignorance, I have no idea what that comes from.

[David7204]

Do you have an answer to my question?

[David7204]

How am I or anyone else supposed to address your complaints if I don't know what you want? It's a simple question. Do you want the Reapers to be right, or do you want them to be wrong?

Modifié par David7204, 15 juin 2013 - 09:05 .

[Redbelle]

David7204 wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

David7204 wrote...

And why is the Catalyst a bad idea?

When the Virmire victim died setting off the bomb, people had to stop and think about who to save and who to die.

This was because they had done two things.

Now imagine the Catalyst is one of the two people you could leave behind.

Do you have the same grounding in the character to choose him to survive over the other?

Course not. His 10 minutes of fame lend the character nothing to suggest he could be a 'character'. It is instead, an info dump device, made to convey vast quantities of information in a short a time window as possible.

This in a character driven narrative. Dropping the Catalyst in at the last minute with no foreshadowing as to what he is or how he is, what he plans for the future, what he thgouht about events in the past. It's all meaningless to the Catalsyt.

You have to recognise that the Catalyst was develoed by a AAA game developer and as a character, it fails to convince on that front. Instead, being an amalagam of different entites that raises questions as to what it is. And raising these new questions, while throwing information at the player, in the end phase of a game where all these plot strands should be nealty tied up and filed away is bad form as a Writer.

For a writer to do this signals that the stroy has gotten away from them so that the creator does not understand how to convey what the theme of the stroy was. Or, it is a sign of disrespect to the story and the reader, in that the writer did not want to, or was unable to put in the time to develop a coherent end to the story.

If a player or reader is going to invest time into a story it signals a placement of trust in the writer to carry the reader along with them. The Catalyst acted as a barrier to the reader while the writer pressed on, unaware that he had dropped the reader's off behind him.

That's the problem

There was plenty of foreshadowing.

It should have been clear to every player that the Reapers had soome sort of motive all the way back in ME 1. If they didn't expect that, they just weren't thinking.

Likewise, there's been plenty of foreshadowing of the Reapers leaving 'booby traps' behind. Of hiding things. Of the Citadel having functions not yet revealed.

The Catalyst is not a 'new' character in any meaningful sense. He's a voice of the Reapers. And I don't really see what question there is about him at all. He's the AI controller of the Reapers who resides on the Citadel and takes an avatar of the kid.

Besides, if your argument was true, why is the conversation with Vigil in ME 1 accepted and liked? He's also basically an info dump.

You answered your own question with Vigil. He is an info dump device.... and ONLY an info dump device. Not the controlling intellect of the enemy.

If you had the controlling intellect of the enemy in front of you it opens to possiblity of manipulating it to shut down the armies it controls. You might say that choosing control or the other options can accomplish this..... but if the Reaper AI is an AI, then like EDI it must have a core, or cores within the Citadel. The Reapers may contribute to the Cat's mind. But the Catalyst implicitly states that the Citadel is it's home. Finding the plug, or introducing disruptive programming to a critical junction is now a possibility to consider given that we now have a better understanding of the enemy.

From the above it can now be seen that new possibilities are open to the player, simply by the Catalyst saying "The Citadel is my home". And "I control the Reapers".

As for foreshadowing...... At what point in the main narrative of Mass Effect, from ME1 to ME3, did we ever get the concept that the Reapers had a controlling overmind behind their intent?

At what point did the word Catalyst, or a framework of a Reaper AI that existed before the first Reaper did come into being?

Why does the Cat look like a little boy with a childs voice overlaid with Shep's and Fem sheps voice...... and why both Sheps when both Shepards cannot exist in the same playthrough as the other. Leading to the question. Why, if you are playing as Femshep, is Shepman's voice even heard, given that Femshep has never heard it before?

And a question.

If you thought that the Catalyst as he appeared was a possibility, could tyou explain how you came to this conclusiton 5 years before BW even developed the concept? As opposed to a giant space ship with designs to destroy advanced life in the galaxy that functioned independently of anything else and exibited higher reasoning skills by co-opting others to fight alongside it?

Because I don't see the logical progression the Reaper in ME1, to Catalyst in ME3...... Unless you have begun mixing up what you knew back then with what you now know and are rewriting your own histroy of understanding.

And do please go into detail on the subject. Because your post above is very skimpy on how you knew something like the Catalyst we eventually saw would eventually appear after 5 years.

And lets not confuse motive and booby traps with how the words and actions of the Reapers hinted at the Catalyst's existence.

Modifié par Redbelle, 15 juin 2013 - 09:14 .