606 réponses à ce sujet

[FlamingBoy]

David7204 wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Why don't you explain to me why you think Destroy 'forces you' to 'accept the racist mantra'?

Really? Destroy is a choice that validates the Catalysts racist mandate in that it necessitates the wholesale slaughter all forms of synthetic life. In any case, the Catalysts (horribly racist) contention is that organics and synthetics are incapable of coexisting peacefully right? The three choices offered to Shep are the catalysts 'solutions' to this apparent problem yes? You get to pick one, thereby validating glowboys explicitly racist mantra. What's to argue?

It might surprise you to learn that the amount of times you can put 'racist' in a paragraph isn't going to convince me of much.

Tell me, is war in general a 'horribly sexist' and 'horrible ageist' mantra in that in necessitates generally young men being killed?

Your right about putting "racist" its almost the same as putting a "?" at the end of every sentence

[David7204]

I'm very aware of how people like to use childish insults like that as little 'Get out of Jail Free' cards in conversation. Why don't you address my question instead of wasting both of our time with pointless nonsense?

Modifié par David7204, 15 juin 2013 - 11:25 .

[The Night Mammoth]

Fandango9641 wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Meh, David's assuming things again so that he has something to argue about. Just another day on the BBA.

Its the manufacturing of what my, or someone else, opinion that annoys me.

Is he well known for this?

He's well known for being undeservedly smug and very argumentative, but I've noticed he assumes things about people's arguments, strawmans, generally stears the argument in a direction that actually gives him something to say. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 15 juin 2013 - 11:26 .

[David7204]

If the Catalyst or Shepard was killing EDI and the geth because they didn't like them, sure. But that's not what's happening. They're killed because that's how the Crucible functions. Nobody wants it to happen.

Modifié par David7204, 15 juin 2013 - 11:31 .

[FlamingBoy]

David7204 wrote...

I'm very aware of how people like to use childish insults like that as little 'Get out of Jail Free' cards in conversation. Why don't you address my question instead of wasting both of our time with pointless nonsense?

Mate you have made almost a page worth of "questions" to this guy. You put all the burden on him with the hope he might slip up.

I mean this in the nicest way possible but I am quite frankly astonished that he entertained your "questions" this long.
Lets me show you, below are quotes of you

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

You know that?

As for your complaint, it's ridiculous. Destroy is not 'embracing
the Catalyst's logic.' Unless we're going back to claiming 2+2 = 5
because the Catalyst says it's 4?

Why don't you explain to me why you think Destroy 'forces you' to 'accept the racist mantra'?



This is all in the last page (I mean I haven't even tried), don't even get me started on other threads

Modifié par FlamingBoy, 15 juin 2013 - 11:36 .

[FlamingBoy]

Fandango9641 wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Meh, David's assuming things again so that he has something to argue about. Just another day on the BBA.

Its the manufacturing of what my, or someone else, opinion that annoys me.

Is he well known for this?

I wouldn't say that he does it intentionally, but he has a preconcieved notion of what our opinions are. Keep in mind I am speaking generally (hence this applies to OP as well, it may or not may not applie to any one ).

As you may recall part of this controversy, according to some people, was the result of "those entitled brats". Despite a whole year since that infamous IGN post (among others). This notion remains and it has tainted any sort of discussion.

Hence the smug superiority you have been experiencing.

[David7204]

This garbage is really the best you can you do? I ask you to explain how it's racist, and the explanation you give me is "It's racist, if you don't see it, I'm done"?

Modifié par David7204, 15 juin 2013 - 11:37 .

[hpjay]

David7204 wrote...

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.

:pinched:The Catalyst/StarKid is the lynchpin, the fulcrum if you will, on which the entire ending is based.  It is thru him the original conflict, STOP THE REAPERS FROM HARVESTING THE GALAXY, is shown to be nothing more than a red herring.  He reveals the real conflict is the METAPHYSICAL CERTAINTY that synthetics and organics can not peacefully co-exist.  You cannot procede thru the ending except thru what he allows you to do and the choices that he makes available.  In effect, the catalyst/starkid becomes the real protagonist and our Shepard is simply allowed to finish his story for him (i.e. solving the problem of the created always rebeling against the creators, which on closer exaimination seemed nothing more than the slaves revolting against thier masters.  Hey, here's a new solution, don't enslave another race simply because their based on silicon instead of carbon!).

The catalyst doesn't need a replacement.  Subbing Harby for the Starkid would do nothing for the story if the speil about "my solution to the enevitable organic/synthetic conflict" remains.  Lose the starkid, lose the last minute substitution of the goal (red herrings), lose the SPACE MAGIC.  (aside:  I'm fine suspending disbeif about being able to change the mass of an object by running a  current thru a nearby hunk of eezo.  That conceit explains mostly all of the scifi in the story.  Even if it gets a bit thin for things like biotics I'll roll with it if it provides good game play and minimal disruption of the narrative.  But throwin a magic beam that can re-arrange life at the molecular level throughout the galaxy, or that can selectively destroy all synthetic life in the galaxy...  see where I'm going here? ).   The catalyst/starkid is the mechanism for the twist ending and the mouthpiece for an intellectual monologue posing as an dramatic ending.

If the catalyst is really insane or stuck in some tragic misunderstanding than we should have been allowed to challenge his basic assumptions about the life, the universe galaxy, and everything.   Instead, and the extended cut made this clear, in terms of narative, we can only listen to and accept his reasons.

Bottom line:  for some of us the idea that two races, two intelligent, sentient, sapient races, cannot peacefully coexist simply because one is based on carbon and the other on silicon, is offfensive.

Modifié par hpjay, 15 juin 2013 - 11:39 .

[Redbelle]

David7204 wrote...

I don't need your little speeches about what a narrative is at the end of each post.

The Catalyst being on the Citadel doesn't necessarily open up any possibilities. You're making way too many assumptions on that. I really doubt the Reapers would just shut down if the Catalyst was destroyed. That sounds like a rather pointless weakness, and I'm glad they didn't go with that. Pretty much any weakness of the sort is going to be a rather pointless weakness.

As for the issues of the Catalyst being on the Citadel, those are somewhat of a concern, but nothing even remotely close to explain the intense hatred towards the Catalyst.

I made no assumption's.....

I made logical leap's as to the implications of an action past actions

As for saying that destroying the Catalyst would shut down the Reapers, I did say that....... as well as point out other possibilities that stemmed from understanding the command and control structure of the Reapers.

You say it's not important? Look at the Reapers own doctrine. They snatch the Citadel, the heart of the galactic community, and nullify the central power structure, throwing all races into a leadership vacuum they must then take time to fill. All the while fighting the Reapers.

Identifying a figure head for the Reapers and killing it is simple warfare 101. Kill the leadership to throw the armies it controls into disarray.

And if you do not want to hear how a base narrative ought to be constructed then I suspect you need to hear more.

Whether it is writing. music, art, I find all these forms of expression have the same thing in common. Expressing an idea, that those who experience it can understand it. And to do this there are rules which, if followed, will result in the idea being expressed to be understood.

However....

As an example. Mozart, for all his conformity to the baseline rules of composing music, also understood another aspect of expressing an art form. There are times when you can break the rules and get away with it. His music at the time was considered glorious and inspired, even if he was considered a little vulgar by the standards of polite society of the time.

The ending of ME3 broke many rules. And had they only been a few here and there. Yet put in the time to justify the reason why these rules were being broken there would not be an issue.

But it's the breaking of narrative rules on the fly, the character of the Catalyst being mishandled with no sense of history, the choices whereby you do not get what many would consider a 'win condition' regardless of choice....... it's all these little issues and more that generated the malcontent and that malcontent found it's avatar in a character who was present when this all happened. And who had no personality or history to deflect the projection of this expression.

[Redbelle]

David7204 wrote...

Why don't you explain to me why you think Destroy 'forces you' to 'accept the racist mantra'?

Reapers are the evil guys who need an ass whooping.

Edi and the Geth are not.

Destroy forces all synthetic life, regardless of the players relationship with them into one camp. If your synthetic, you must die. Players who do not want to kill EDI and the Geth, but do want to kill the Reapers, are then caught between two conflicting principles of which killing the Reapers has to win out. Or everyone dies.

Given that Sci-Fi is often used to mirror issues in society, and that racism is one that gets alot of air time given that alien's are alien, the racist mantra argument seems to hold some weight.

EDI and the Geth fought alongside all other races. Disproving the Catalyst's assumptions of what it considered the inevitable conflict, and demonstrating the Catalyst's outlook on life as fundmanetally flawed.

By intervening the Catalyst and the Reapers ultimately created a galactic society of organics and synthetics who could and did live together and fight beside one another against a common enemy.

Yet the Catalyst refuses to acknowledge this event. Staying firmly entrenched in how it thought life should be like in defiance of the facts around it.

Modifié par Redbelle, 15 juin 2013 - 11:47 .

[David7204]

It's not very well explained, but I think EDI and the geth cooperating with organics was the whole reason the Catalyst hands the choice over to Shepard to begin with. He hands the choice to Shepard because he acknowledges Shepard knows or understands something he doesn't because the current cycle defied his expectations.

Modifié par David7204, 15 juin 2013 - 11:51 .

[KiwiQuiche]

David7204 wrote...

It's not very well explained, but I think EDI and the geth cooperating with organics was the whole reason the Catalyst hands the choice over to Shepard to begin with. He hands the choice to Shepard because he acknowledges Shepard knows or understands something he doesn't because the current cycle defied his expectations.

Cycles could have overcome the whole "evil synthetics" crap if Starbrat kept his genocidal urges in check; even Javik states the Protheans had nearly solved their synthetic problem before the Catalyst intervened.

Starbrat never once mentions the geth or EDI; he doesn't acknowledge it, nor does Shepard bring it up. He basically gives Shepard permission to win because she managed to drag her ass that far and he's admitting his stupid solution isn't working. (Oo, really? Why don't you try a new one then, ******.)

[David7204]

There's no way around the fact that it was very poorly explained. And there's no evidence either way. My explanation makes more sense.

Modifié par David7204, 15 juin 2013 - 11:57 .

[KiwiQuiche]

David7204 wrote...

There's no way around the fact that it was very poorly explained. And there's no evidence either way. My explanation makes more sense.

Oh I forgot, everything you say is way more intelligent and makes more sense than everyone elses interpretation. My bad.

[Redbelle]

David7204 wrote...

If the Catalyst or Shepard was killing EDI and the geth because they didn't like them, sure. But that's not what's happening. They're killed because that's how the Crucible functions. Nobody wants it to happen.

They died because someone at BW did not seriously consider the possibility that the players vision of victory would be different than their own.

And the malcontent of the fans came when they discovered that their personal principles in their main playthrough's were not being catered too.

Second and third playthroughs maybe not so much because then you get the chance to roleplay more and explore the games narrative paths. But I find first playthroughs tend to be more focused towards, doin things as I the player would do them.

[David7204]

Maybe so. That doesn't mean picking Destroy is supporting a 'racist mantra.'

[hpjay]

David7204 wrote...

It's not very well explained, but I think EDI and the geth cooperating with organics was the whole reason the Catalyst hands the choice over to Shepard to begin with. He hands the choice to Shepard because he acknowledges Shepard knows or understands something he doesn't because the current cycle defied his expectations.

 

Given the endings the way they are, if we must have the catalyst, it would have been nice to have that conversation with him.  If the starkid was presented as an antagonist who we needed to convince, conjole, and or threaten thu examples of what we had done over the course of three games coupled with smart dialog options, and those things yielded some version of the current endings; I might buy that.  

Stealth edit:  But that would maybe mean the starkid would have to go all Emily Litella once the error of his ways were poinjted out...

Modifié par hpjay, 15 juin 2013 - 12:07 .

[Redbelle]

Hmmm, maybe Specist would be a better word. After all. All the player wants is to take out those within the species that are being disruptive. Not kill them all because some were genocidal.

[favoritehookeronthecitadel]

Have sex already. It's getting hot in here.

[KiwiQuiche]

favoritehookeronthecitadel wrote...

Have sex already. It's getting hot in here.

I've taken advice from a hooker once and I'm not falling for it again.

[Eryri]

hpjay wrote...

If the catalyst is really insane or stuck in some tragic misunderstanding than we should have been allowed to challenge his basic assumptions about the life, the universe galaxy, and everything.   Instead, and the extended cut made this clear, in terms of narative, we can only listen to and accept his reasons.

Bottom line:  for some of us the idea that two races, two intelligent, sentient, sapient races, cannot peacefully coexist simply because one is based on carbon and the other on silicon, is offfensive.

Agreed. I'm simply not interested in this metaphysical claptrap, shoehorned into an otherwise enjoyable space opera in the last 10 minutes. And in the context of the game, Shepard's experiences with the Geth and Edi should lead to question if the Catalyst's "problem" even exists.