33 réponses à ce sujet

[GreatBlueHeron]

TIM if you're more renegade, Anderson if you're more paragon. Anything but that "kid". If BioWare would have actually done something with indoctrination, it would be fine, but all that's left are bits and pieces---the "kid" is out of place and forced throughout the game. The dreams were annoying. I don't like having children/representations of children in video games, maybe because I haven't yet played a game where they were effectively/believably used. Resident Evil 2 did almost OK; however, I'd rather play adult games with adult characters.

[AlanC9]

Rasofe wrote...

I really want him to be wrong. NegaShepard is about as wrong as it gets.

Kinda difficult to pull that one off for folks who don't have the DLC, of course.

[Artifex_Imperius]

but what if the catalyst took the form of a "half-naked miranda"? can you even resist?

Modifié par Artifex_Imperius, 29 novembre 2013 - 05:44 .

[SwobyJ]

I never really enjoyed Miranda until Citadel DLC tbh.

She was meh in ME2, okish in ME3. And the ass shots went from 'haha..cute devs' to 'just stop... stop'.

[Rotward]

What's a negashepard? On topic, I think it'd have been interesting seeing someone based on your per-service history. Perhaps the escaped slave for colonist, the gang member for earth-born, and the spacer equivalent. It'd bring things full circle, in my opinion.

[I Tsunayoshi I]

David7204 wrote...

So why exactly do people think the Catalyst would be better if it looked like dead squadmates?

People are gleefully eager to announce how much they despise him, gleefully eager to announce how wrong and stupid he is, and yet they think that giving him a trustworthy voice would be an improvement?

A simple question: Do people want the Catalyst to be wrong, or to be right?

The problem with the Catalyst is that even though we realize the many, many things wrong with the choices that it gives us, and to a point I suspect that it directly interferes in a way to screw you for making the one choice that obviously works against it

Destroy is more or less a proven load of BS, namely that it is capable of precision work (See Control). Personally, I believe that Starbrat is ****ing around with it so that you are forced to take more causalities due to having sour grapes about the fact that its about to lose and can do nothing to stop you unless you take the two obvious trap choices.

Control more or less is suicide. Not sure how destroying myself allows me to take over the remaining Reaper fleet, but the obvious Reaper tech from the Control device and the fact that it IS described to work only on the Reapers (Direct contradiction to the Crucible being unable to do precision work when listening to the Destroy option.) Its far more believable that Shepard is just being made to believe (s)he is in control when (s)he really isnt.

Then there is the damningly insulting option of Synthesis. Besides the fact it follow the logic of Control in how everyone becomes BioSynths (I dont know how destroying your body enables this any more than uploading your mind as the new Reaper conciousness), it also spits in the face of major themes of the game by allowing you to make a decision that removes the entire galaxies ability to choose what they want.

That said, ignoring that all of this would still be around regardless of the form taken by the Catalyst, the presentation of the choices would have far more effect coming from those closest to Shepard throughout the trilogy, with the LI, best Alignment based personality, and 1-2 casualties that may illicit a guilt response.

[Eryri]

A giant anthropomorphic taco. That poops ice cream.

[Sion1138]

Eryri wrote...

A giant anthropomorphic taco. That poops ice cream.

South Park.

[Catastrophy]

Architect. But with a bullet in his head. Someone met him before.