435 réponses à ce sujet

[ruggly]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

ruggly wrote...

Except that it doesn't see it as destroying organics.  From it's point of view, it's preserving our (and I loathe this term) "essence" in Reapers.  So the culture and history isn't truly lost, just the individuals who made up those people. Problem is, we like to keep our individual forms. So from our point of view, yes, we see it as destruction and murder.

Except now this is also bull**it. No matter how the Catalyst wants to sugarcoat his repeated genocide, it's still genocide, regardless of its POV.

If I killed every single person living in sub-Saharan Africa, ground the remains into a paste and poured it into a gigantic body cast, I'm not preserving anything about them, regardless of what I might say to justify myself afterwards.

Keeping your individual forms is irrelevant when the Catalyst considers you doomed to extinction anyway.

Also, your analogy is a false-equivalence.

The Catalyst creates a Reaper. The Reaper is 1 life, and it preserves cultural memory. So the solution is: 1 > 0.

But I can't eat chocolate if I'm part of a Reaper.  So yeah, f*ck that.  I'll fight to keep that, and so I can drink beer.

Modifié par ruggly, 07 juillet 2013 - 06:43 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

StreetMagic wrote...

I wonder if people who defend this sort of stuff are similar to the early internet cyberpunk types who railed against living in "meatspace" and seemed to be disembodied, disliking a lot of the daily realities of organic life. I mean, it's the only way any of this could ever be cool. If you already hate life anyways.

Do not conflate [understanding the story] with [defending the antagonist].

[Newnation]

The reason I think the Catalyst is just a horrible idea storywise is because from ME to 3/4 of ME 3, it is never hinted that it was what was controling the reapers. ME made it seem like the reapers were just a bunch of sentient machines bent on destroying all life. Then in ME 2 they're harvasting all organic life and turning them into reapers. In ME 3  they're the same as ME 2 with the exception of being a full scale invasion....then suddenly we find out the reapers are not really the sentient robots from ME but robots made of harvasted civilizations that are controlled by the catalyst which was introduced in the very last act of the last game in the trilogy,

Then they have it's reason for starting the cycles being all synthetics will rise up and destroy organics when it is nothing but an AI to begin with. They could have added more to the story if they just explored that one aspect but they didn't. ( I don't consider one small line of dialog in the EC and Leviathan as exploring this concept.)

They then have it offer you three choices which are just as bad as the way the Catalyst is portrayed in the game. You spend most of the trilogy trying to stop the reapers. Now all of a sudden you can control them if you want or create a new type of dna that is supposed to happen eventually anyway. That basically makes the reapers misunderstood janitors trying to clean up a mess instead of the boogeyman like they were portrayed throughout most if the series. The games put emphasis on natural evolution and now they're forcing it on you instead of letting it happeb naturally.

The last of my reasons for it being a bad choice storywise is because the character and the ending in general just mess up the flow of the overall story of what was already established in the games.

[LogicGunn]

Not necessarily a bad choice, it's just that without the Leviathan DLC it comes from nowhere and feels lazily convenient. It was a good idea, poorly executed the first time round in my opinion. Even with the Leviathan DLC it's not as fully developed and fleshed out as it could have been to make it a truly epic ending. I think it could have been something spectacular, but the execution wasn't up to par with the rest of the trilogy.

Modifié par LogicGunn, 07 juillet 2013 - 01:08 .

[Eckswhyzed]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

I wonder if people who defend this sort of stuff are similar to the early internet cyberpunk types who railed against living in "meatspace" and seemed to be disembodied, disliking a lot of the daily realities of organic life. I mean, it's the only way any of this could ever be cool. If you already hate life anyways.

Do not conflate [understanding the story] with [defending the antagonist].

I'm with you on this HYR.

But I'd be lying if I said what I know and believe about AI didn't influence my views on the ending. Being read up on the singularity, machine intelligence, the problem of unfriendly AI etc. definitely meant that I found the Catalyst's motivation to be comprehensible.

It's unfortunate that such ideas weren't introduced a lot earlier, becuase there's some interesting stuff there.

[RiouHotaru]

The Catalyst's argument appears faulty because it has a vastly different idea of what "life" is than we do. We view the body as being AS important as the mind. The Catalyst believes the mind the ONLY important element. And since it can (through some scientific process still unknown) preserve the mind at the cost of the body... we get the Reapers.

I never saw the Catalyst as an antagonist, and even in the OE, it's argument wasn't completely faulty. It was clear we weren't getting the whole story, but then we were SUPPOSED to get the Leviathan DLC afterwards, which was pushed back by the EC. Honestly, the exposition dump in the EC is, in my opinion, WORSE than the OE. Because for all the implication of "If you don't choose quick, the Reapers win" the Catalyst dumping almost it's entire background on you was just silly. Especially since most of the questions Shepard can ask are largely pointless.

Knowing what the Catalyst is or who made it had effectively zero influence, at least for me, on my final decision. The only exposition truly necessary was the description of the endings. It's odd how they changed the lines too. Originally the Catalyst stated that the Geth would die for certain in the OE, whereas suddenly in the EC it's just "all synthetics" will be targeted.

Leaving out the line about the Mass Relays being destroyed was also puzzling. I mean, they're destroyed either way, change of cutscene or not (yet another unnecessary change), so why leave it out?

Personally, I found the Catalyst an excellent proxy. My only regret is that we STILL have no idea who made the Crucible, or where they got the idea for it. That will linger with me more than anything.

[Trentest0]

I find that with Leviathan it becomes acceptable. I still think the Reapers were nerfed as the main big baddies, and their motives could have been much better. But at least Leviathan offers foreshadowing and a better understanding of the Catalyst.

I can believe that the Catalyst is an AI gone wrong: it is malfunctioning or just has no 'moral system' in place. It fixes most plot holes but not all. That'll be satisfactory for me.

[Xamufam]

RiouHotaru wrote...

The Catalyst's argument appears faulty because it has a vastly different idea of what "life" is than we do. We view the body as being AS important as the mind. The Catalyst believes the mind the ONLY important element. And since it can (through some scientific process still unknown) preserve the mind at the cost of the body... we get the Reapers.

I never saw the Catalyst as an antagonist, and even in the OE, it's argument wasn't completely faulty. It was clear we weren't getting the whole story, but then we were SUPPOSED to get the Leviathan DLC afterwards, which was pushed back by the EC. Honestly, the exposition dump in the EC is, in my opinion, WORSE than the OE. Because for all the implication of "If you don't choose quick, the Reapers win" the Catalyst dumping almost it's entire background on you was just silly. Especially since most of the questions Shepard can ask are largely pointless.

Knowing what the Catalyst is or who made it had effectively zero influence, at least for me, on my final decision. The only exposition truly necessary was the description of the endings. It's odd how they changed the lines too. Originally the Catalyst stated that the Geth would die for certain in the OE, whereas suddenly in the EC it's just "all synthetics" will be targeted.

Leaving out the line about the Mass Relays being destroyed was also puzzling. I mean, they're destroyed either way, change of cutscene or not (yet another unnecessary change), so why leave it out?

Personally, I found the Catalyst an excellent proxy. My only regret is that we STILL have no idea who made the Crucible, or where they got the idea for it. That will linger with me more than anything.

It was never planned

“It's different for every DLC,” Condominas explains. “Some of them were never thought of before ME3 was done, like Leviathan. But with Omega it's a bit different. It's a huge DLC
exploring an iconic place and characters we knew before ME3 was released.

source:
http://www.eurogamer...r-in-4-hour-dlc

Modifié par Troxa, 10 juillet 2013 - 01:28 .

[samgurl775]

The entire concept of the Catalyst and Crucible were bad storywise.

[RiouHotaru]

Troxa wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

The Catalyst's argument appears faulty because it has a vastly different idea of what "life" is than we do. We view the body as being AS important as the mind. The Catalyst believes the mind the ONLY important element. And since it can (through some scientific process still unknown) preserve the mind at the cost of the body... we get the Reapers.

I never saw the Catalyst as an antagonist, and even in the OE, it's argument wasn't completely faulty. It was clear we weren't getting the whole story, but then we were SUPPOSED to get the Leviathan DLC afterwards, which was pushed back by the EC. Honestly, the exposition dump in the EC is, in my opinion, WORSE than the OE. Because for all the implication of "If you don't choose quick, the Reapers win" the Catalyst dumping almost it's entire background on you was just silly. Especially since most of the questions Shepard can ask are largely pointless.

Knowing what the Catalyst is or who made it had effectively zero influence, at least for me, on my final decision. The only exposition truly necessary was the description of the endings. It's odd how they changed the lines too. Originally the Catalyst stated that the Geth would die for certain in the OE, whereas suddenly in the EC it's just "all synthetics" will be targeted.

Leaving out the line about the Mass Relays being destroyed was also puzzling. I mean, they're destroyed either way, change of cutscene or not (yet another unnecessary change), so why leave it out?

Personally, I found the Catalyst an excellent proxy. My only regret is that we STILL have no idea who made the Crucible, or where they got the idea for it. That will linger with me more than anything.

It was never planned

“It's different for every DLC,” Condominas explains. “Some of them were never thought of before ME3 was done, like Leviathan. But with Omega it's a bit different. It's a huge DLC
exploring an iconic place and characters we knew before ME3 was released.

source:
http://www.eurogamer...r-in-4-hour-dlc

You know what I mean.  It was fairly obvious a DLC regarding the origin of the Reapers was an idea on their list of things they could do.  Remember, they were done with ME3 for at least a MONTH because of the certification process.  This gave them plenty of time to look at and explore new ideas, one of which was "Where did the Reapers come from?"  Did you think they waited until AFTER the Extended Cut to start work on Leviathan?

[KaiserShep]

RiouHotaru wrote...
Leaving out the line about the Mass Relays being destroyed was also puzzling. I mean, they're destroyed either way, change of cutscene or not (yet another unnecessary change), so why leave it out?

It's left out because the relays don't explode like they did before the EC, but rather just damaged and able to be repaired. Presumably, whatever power source they contain is intact, or else it would've been like a supernova. They shouldn't have even bothered damaging them at all if they're going to retcon them, but whatever. Thing is, the original ending totally screwed up with the destruction of the relays, because their complete destruction pretty much means the end of whatever worlds are in that star system, so every major race should be dead and gone, but somehow they glossed over that with a scene of the Normandy stranded somewhere, and Shepard taking a breath. It made even less sense. 

Modifié par KaiserShep, 10 juillet 2013 - 09:04 .

[hpjay]

Cheviot wrote...

Sumthing wrote...

The starchild creates plotholes that previously didn't exist. Not only in ME3, but also in the previous games. In Mass Effect 1, why didn't starchild just let the reapers in himself? In Mass Effect 2, why didn't Star Child let the reapers in rather than have the reapers take the long way over?

When it set up the Cycles and created the Reapers, it stacked all the odds in the Reaper's favour, made it almost impossible for them to fail.  This was so that, if they did fail, then the Catalyst would know that enough had changed in the galaxy to mean the Reapers were no longer a suitable solution.  It is only then that it gets involved.

    The failure of the Reapers is orthoganal the their suitability as a solution.  Its a logical non-sequitur.

[Xamufam]

RiouHotaru wrote...

You know what I mean.  It was fairly obvious a DLC regarding the origin of the Reapers was an idea on their list of things they could do.  Remember, they were done with ME3 for at least a MONTH because of the certification process.  This gave them plenty of time to look at and explore new ideas, one of which was "Where did the Reapers come from?"  Did you think they waited until AFTER the Extended Cut to start work on Leviathan?

In the leaked script it said shepard would become one with the reapers, thefinalhourofme3 documentary app says shepard falls under reaper control & a bossbattle against illusiveman, it also says bioware had no idea how to end the game after the leak, so mac wrote this note in november for a new ending with hybrid in the middle. the bossbattle doesnt work with reapers under control.(shepard would have been indoctrinated as paul grayson in mas effect  retribiution throgh the cerberus implants(the vel explains the indoctrination process) Illusive man was already under reaper influence since the first contact war when he & saren was exposed to a reaper artifact it mutated his eyes) & mass effect 2 made it clear who the main antagonist was harbinger he even said that the geth were an annoyance

the following file located in the cookedPC folder : end001_final_run_trouble.

TIM confrontation was pretty much a place holder back in the script but seemed more complicated than "pick blue lol"
A
lot of descriptions "you are regaining control" and "you are losing
control" - there appeared to be 10 steps in the conversation and not 5

(bioware tweaks the ending pre launch)
www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-11-15-bioware-may-tweak-the-mass-effect-3-story-based-on-feedback-to-leaked-script

www.gamesradar.com/bioware-open-mass-effect-3-plot-tweaks-following-script-leak/

Edit: If it wasn't for the leak we would not have gotten these suddenly religous themes at the end of the game
Javik was also supposed to be the catalyst in the leaked script
The citadel being part of the catalyst really destroyed the flow of the narrative.
The dreams are just a rest of the indoctrination process
In the me 3 guide there was no catalyst
Its also why synthesis comes from nowhere

Modifié par Troxa, 10 juillet 2013 - 12:25 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

The Catalyst conceptually was meant to fill the same role as Vigil: a character who appears in the end game to explain the way of the world and offer a means of closure.

He just does a ****** poor job of it by comparison.

[Clayless]

Troxa wrote...

-snip-

That's all just nonsense. It's clearly synthesis in the leaked script, Javik was Vendetta in the leaked script and there's nothing about IT in anything you said. They said they wanted to make a scene where the player loses control but scrapped it after they couldn't get the gameplay to work. They replaced it with a cutscene, hence the final TIM scene (which is the section where Shepard and Anderson start to lose control in the leaked script).

Your links also don't say that Bioware tweaked the ending after the leak. Like seriously, read them.

[Dubozz]

More like ME3 ending is nonsence.

[CronoDragoon]

StreetMagic wrote...
Chocolate and beer are good.

Even better together.

[Xamufam]

Robosexual wrote...

Troxa wrote...

-snip-

That's all just nonsense. It's clearly synthesis in the leaked script, Javik was Vendetta in the leaked script and there's nothing about IT in anything you said. They said they wanted to make a scene where the player loses control but scrapped it after they couldn't get the gameplay to work. They replaced it with a cutscene, hence the final TIM scene (which is the section where Shepard and Anderson start to lose control in the leaked script).

Your links also don't say that Bioware tweaked the ending after the leak. Like seriously, read them.

read the novel mass effect retribiution & you will see the indoctrination process, everything to shepards indoctrination was setup in the game but they dropped it. (IT didn't come from nowhere it came frome the game/shepard codex comic mass effect evolution & the novel mass effect retribiution)
Synthesis isn't in the leaked script because now in the guide it is written "At a 2800 readines you're able to create synergy between organics & synthetics, saving earth & the galaxy", not shepard would become one with the reapers
& here is another problem it turned 2010 pseudo philosophical at the last 15 min without exploring spirituality & symbolism when you make something like this you have to begin the story with it not put it in at the end of the trilogy
mass effect is an 80s-90s classic science fiction not an 2010 pseudo philosophical scifi

Modifié par Troxa, 10 juillet 2013 - 07:06 .

[AlanC9]

Troxa wrote...

read the novel mass effect retribiution & you will see the indoctrination process, everything to shepards indoctrination was setup in the game but they dropped it. (IT didn't come from nowhere it came frome the game/shepard codex comic mass effect evolution & the novel mass effect retribiution)

Bio probably shouldn't have tried to introduce a new concept for how indoctrination works in the comics and the novels rather than in the games.

Synthesis isn't in the leaked script because now in the guide it is written "At a 2800 readines you're able to create synergy between organics & synthetics, saving earth & the galaxy", not shepard would become one with the reapers

I don't think this means what you think it means. Mostly it means that whoever wrote the guide didn't know what "synergy" means.

[dublin omega 223]

The starchild was a terrible plot device as was the Crucible itself.

[JamesFaith]

AlanC9 wrote...

Troxa wrote...

read the novel mass effect retribiution & you will see the indoctrination process, everything to shepards indoctrination was setup in the game but they dropped it. (IT didn't come from nowhere it came frome the game/shepard codex comic mass effect evolution & the novel mass effect retribiution)

Bio probably shouldn't have tried to introduce a new concept for how indoctrination works in the comics and the novels rather than in the games.

Actually it was more transfomation to husk then typical indoctrination. Source of this indoctrination was quantum entanglement nanites injected to Grayson system, but people like Rana Thanoptis were, by all we know, indoctrinated without direct contact.

[FreshRevenge]

You know I thought that Harbinger was going to be the main villian. I mean all through ME2, there is talk about Harbinger saying "this hurts you" Saying to capture Shepard alive and everything and at the end, we get a little boy? What happened to Harbinger? I mean after you kill the reaper on Rannoch, it says that Harbinger speaks of Shepard. So what happened to Harbinger, oh that's right the little boy took the stage!

[Xamufam]

AlanC9 wrote...

The novel was introduced 2010 It established how indoctrination works (it's also in the codex). in the comic evolution it explains how illusive man got his mutated eyes (exposed to reaper artifact first contact war) & overlord dlc established shepards mutated eyes
we already know that indoctrination through implants can work (saren)

But i know what you are saying

I hope you agree with this if a developer put something in & was 80-90% done with it they should not cut it, it only  leads to something like IT

Modifié par Troxa, 10 juillet 2013 - 08:56 .

[Coyotebay]

ME3 suddenly switched the focus to the "why".  In ME1 and ME2, why the Reapers wanted to destroy organics was simply, "Because they can", and this was good enough.  But the writers decided to go all high concept at the end of ME3 and that's where the problems started, because they were now shoe-horning the story from the previous two games into an ending they had just concocted.  It was the tail wagging the dog.  So you get a McGuffin and a dues ex machina to explain things when you simply could have had Shepard duke it out with TIM over controlling versus destroying the Reapers, coninuing a theme already fully established in the previous games, and ended it with him choosing one path over the other, just like he did at the end of ME2.