435 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Nightwriter wrote...
I think it's natural for fans to want the outcome that has had the most buildup by a landslide. If BioWare wanted me to see the Reapers in a good enough light that I could trust the Catalyst, they should not have put so many bricks in the wrong dish.

I don't quite follow this part. What do you figure we need to trust the Catalyst about?

[Nightwriter]

AlanC9 wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...
I think it's natural for fans to want the outcome that has had the most buildup by a landslide. If BioWare wanted me to see the Reapers in a good enough light that I could trust the Catalyst, they should not have put so many bricks in the wrong dish.

I don't quite follow this part. What do you figure we need to trust the Catalyst about?

Uh, stock prices, duh.

Where is your head at.

[Eckswhyzed]

Ravensword wrote...

He is literally the god from the machine—the machine being the Crucible.

Thanks, Mac.<_<

What I find great is that even though it's a god from a machine -

- it asks you to solve its problem.

I see what you did there, Walters.

[Ravensword]

Eckswhyzed wrote...

Ravensword wrote...

He is literally the god from the machine—the machine being the Crucible.

Thanks, Mac.<_<

What I find great is that even though it's a god from a machine -

- it asks you to solve its problem.

I see what you did there, Walters.

Pick a color and win!

[GreyLycanTrope]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

The Catalyst is like GWB -- not the guy pulling the strings, but the guy you hate as the face of all policies associated with him.

I did a poll that proves this point: http://social.bioware.com/3816502/polls/37239/.

You can take him out of the ending and it generally doesn't change the public opinion.

I'm inclined to agree, some of just really don't like the concept in general.

Though you're not wrong OP glowboy certainly didn't help matters.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 04 juillet 2013 - 02:11 .

[AlexMBrennan]

1) he is the main villain, and Biowaer chose to give him crucial exposition which completely changes everything in the last 5 minutes of the game and apparently wants players to go along with it
2) the entity controlling the reapers letting Shepard win kills any sense of achievement - you might as well have the archdemon chop his own head off
3) we already hate the child for being the instrument of painfully obvious in-your-face emotional manipulation, so bringing it back for the climax for no reason at all doesn't exactly earn bonus points

I don't quite follow this part. What do you figure we need to trust the Catalyst about?

That whole "synthetics will inevitably kill all organics" idea? Just as we are about to wipe out the Reapers, the Reapers reveal that there is a much bigger threat... Convenient, isn't it? Why else would anyone pick synthesis?

Modifié par AlexMBrennan, 04 juillet 2013 - 02:28 .

[FreshRevenge]

this just dawn on me. Obviously the cycle was set up for organics but does it say that synthetics would be harvested? I mean if each cycle made synthetics; did those synthetics get wiped out by the reapers as well?

Edit: Aren't synthetics responsible since they are the created. So why are the creators being harvested?

Modifié par FreshRevenge, 04 juillet 2013 - 02:28 .

[Tron Mega]

hudson and walters shoulda pulled a Citadel DLC on their own staff(i havent played the DLC, just youtubed a portion).

you know, the whole 'your only as good as those around you' theme.

woulda been well worth it for the ending considered what bioware did beforehand.

Modifié par Tron Mega, 04 juillet 2013 - 02:37 .

[Nightwriter]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

1) he is the main villain, and Biowaer chose to give him crucial exposition which completely changes everything in the last 5 minutes of the game and apparently wants players to go along with it
2) the entity controlling the reapers letting Shepard win kills any sense of achievement - you might as well have the archdemon chop his own head off
3) we already hate the child for being the instrument of painfully obvious in-your-face emotional manipulation, so bringing it back for the climax for no reason at all doesn't exactly earn bonus points

I don't quite follow this part. What do you figure we need to trust the Catalyst about?

That whole "synthetics will inevitably kill all organics" idea? Just as we are about to wipe out the Reapers, the Reapers reveal that there is a much bigger threat... Convenient, isn't it? Why else would anyone pick synthesis?

He probably means that if you don't trust the Catalyst you can pick Destroy. Thing is, you still sort of have to trust it when it says EDI and the geth have to die alongside the Reapers. There's just no way to verify if that's true or not, and in any case, why can't the Catalyst just take your orders and execute them, since he controls the Reapers? No Crucible necessary. EDI and the geth can live. Yet I must use this imprecise galactic gun instead.

Miiiiiiiiigggggghhhhhhty fishy.

Also, totes agree with your three points.

Modifié par Nightwriter, 04 juillet 2013 - 02:41 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

That whole "synthetics will inevitably kill all organics" idea? Just as we are about to wipe out the Reapers, the Reapers reveal that there is a much bigger threat... Convenient, isn't it? Why else would anyone pick synthesis?

The Catalyst is the Singularity, count one.

An AI that lead to the eradication of all (sapient) organic life in Leviathan's era and has been the case of it ever since.

Hence, dealing with the problem takes the same effects as dealing with it. Destroy synthetics? Destroy it/Reapers.


*edit*

I believe it was Javik who re-affirmed this idea. Something like: "We learned machines surpassed us long ago."

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 04 juillet 2013 - 02:47 .

[Steelcan]

Singularity is when all synthetic minds are connected no? Synthesis bring about Singularity, the Reapers are not united, they are "I" not "We"

Modifié par Steelcan, 04 juillet 2013 - 02:51 .

[AlanC9]

Nightwriter wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...
I think it's natural for fans to want the outcome that has had the most buildup by a landslide. If BioWare wanted me to see the Reapers in a good enough light that I could trust the Catalyst, they should not have put so many bricks in the wrong dish.

I don't quite follow this part. What do you figure we need to trust the Catalyst about?

Uh, stock prices, duh.

Where is your head at.

Serious question.. If it's the Crucible functions we have trouble trusting him about, everyone'd be Refusing. But we're not. And everything else he says is only of historical importance. So what's the issue?

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Steelcan wrote...

Singularity is when all synthetic minds are connected no? Synthesis bring about Singularity, the Reapers are not united, they are "I" not "We"

I'm referring more to the general concept of synthetics surpassing organics, such that they can destroy them all on a whim.

Which the Catalyst/Reapers are.

[Nightwriter]

AlanC9 wrote...

Serious question.. If it's the Crucible functions we have trouble trusting him about, everyone'd be Refusing. But we're not. And everything else he says is only of historical importance. So what's the issue?

I admit I didn't know it was serious until another person responded seriously. I assumed you had been in enough threads like this that you knew the usual arguments.

In response to your question, the issue is that much of the critical fanbase is a bit conflicted -- they oppose the endings and feel a powerful aversion to the Catalyst, but at the same time they understand that choosing one of the three colored options is the only way to preserve anything they care about. This leads them to grudgingly play ball even though they don't like it, b*tching all the while (as I so graciously demonstrate for everyone on a regular basis).

[Steelcan]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Singularity is when all synthetic minds are connected no? Synthesis bring about Singularity, the Reapers are not united, they are "I" not "We"

I'm referring more to the general concept of synthetics surpassing organics, such that they can destroy them all on a whim.

Which the Catalyst/Reapers are.

  nope



"You exist because we allow it, you will die because we demand it"

[AlanC9]

Nightwriter wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Serious question.. If it's the Crucible functions we have trouble trusting him about, everyone'd be Refusing. But we're not. And everything else he says is only of historical importance. So what's the issue?

I admit I didn't know it was serious until another person responded seriously. I assumed you had been in enough threads like this that you knew the usual arguments.

In response to your question, the issue is that much of the critical fanbase is a bit conflicted -- they oppose the endings and feel a powerful aversion to the Catalyst, but at the same time they understand that choosing one of the three colored options is the only way to preserve anything they care about. This leads them to grudgingly play ball even though they don't like it, b*tching all the while (as I so graciously demonstrate for everyone on a regular basis).

So the problem really is having to trust the Catalyst about the Crucible functions, then? People would like them to be lies so they could just Refuse in good conscience?

[Nightwriter]

AlanC9 wrote...

So the problem really is having to trust the Catalyst about the Crucible functions, then? People would like them to be lies so they could just Refuse in good conscience?

The problem is that BioWare picked the wrong mouthpiece.

[AlexMBrennan]

In response to your question, the issue is that much of the critical fanbase is a bit conflicted -- they oppose the endings and feel a powerful aversion to the Catalyst, but at the same time they understand that choosing one of the three colored options is the only way to preserve anything they care about

No meta gaming is required - if Catalyst is lying about the functions of the crucible (e.g. Giving Shepard three ways if committing suicide) then we are already dead: we bet everything on being able to finish the crucible on time, and failed since we don't have a clue how to activate it.

Since there is no way of winning if all three options are traps we might just as well assume that that isn't the case. Since refuse is certain death, do not picking that is a no-brainer (If you don't choose, everyone will die - how much worse could it possibly get?)

[AlanC9]

Nightwriter wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

So the problem really is having to trust the Catalyst about the Crucible functions, then? People would like them to be lies so they could just Refuse in good conscience?

The problem is that BioWare picked the wrong mouthpiece.

I'm still fuzzy on why this matters. To paraphrase David7204, even if Hitler tells you 2+2=4, it's still 4.

[Nightwriter]

AlanC9 wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

So the problem really is having to trust the Catalyst about the Crucible functions, then? People would like them to be lies so they could just Refuse in good conscience?

The problem is that BioWare picked the wrong mouthpiece.

I'm still fuzzy on why this matters. To paraphrase David7204, even if Hitler tells you 2+2=4, it's still 4.

How silly of him. 2+2=4 is a verifiable statement.

What if Hitler told you that eventually all the Jews would rise up and kill everyone, and the only way to solve this is to kill them or kill yourself?

Edit: Also, prolly shouldn't Godwin, now I think on it.

Modifié par Nightwriter, 04 juillet 2013 - 04:53 .

[SilJeff]

Eckswhyzed wrote...

Also, I'd like to state that I chuckle when I see people use the term "starbrat". That always seemed childish to me.

i definitely agree with this.


I understand what Walters was trying to do with it, but I think the presentation was bad. Had it been foreshadowed what the Catalyst is before the 11th hour, it wouldn't be such a bad thing. I don't mind the endings, but I wish they were presented better (though MY problem is not the endings, but the mission right before it).

I think for one, the catalyst shouldn't have been the child. They could still keep the child in the game to represent those who died that Shepard couldn't save, just not make the catalyst take the form of him.

so, I guess what I'm trying to say is that I think that the ending is not nearly as bad as many claim, but there are definitely problems with the way it was handled. I just think it needed work, and the Catalyst is just a scapegoat. Sorry if I'm not making much sense with this post. I am not 100% sure WHAT I think about the catalyst/endings. I don't mind the ending, I just know it could have been a lot more.

Modifié par SilJeff, 04 juillet 2013 - 04:56 .

[o Ventus]

Steelcan wrote...

Singularity is when all synthetic minds are connected no? Synthesis bring about Singularity, the Reapers are not united, they are "I" not "We"

A singularity is when a synthetic intelligence evolves a faster rate than its organic creators are able to manage. It's neither inherently good nor bad. Synthesis doesn't bring about a singularity, it effectively stops it from ever happening.

Modifié par o Ventus, 04 juillet 2013 - 05:16 .