164 réponses à ce sujet

[Splinter Cell 108]

Well what did they expect, it's not like they can give out all the details about the Reapers in the first two games. I find it stupid that they consider the Reapers dull, especially with the amount of mystery surrounding there existence. In fact that's what makes them interesting, nobody knows why they do these things, nobody knows who created them or how long they've been around.

[Mr. MannlyMan]

Splinter Cell 108 wrote...

Well what did they expect, it's not like they can give out all the details about the Reapers in the first two games. I find it stupid that they consider the Reapers dull, especially with the amount of mystery surrounding there existence. In fact that's what makes them interesting, nobody knows why they do these things, nobody knows who created them or how long they've been around.

Which is why you need individual villains to face while the greater Reaper threat develops towards its inevitable reveal.

ME1 had Saren and Sovereign.
ME2 has... the Collectors. And Harbinger. Neither of which you ever really interact with, other than from the butt end of a rifle. Neither of which ever really get a satisfying reveal; the Collectors are pretty much drones that used to be Protheans. That's about as much as we ever learn about their background. Harbinger is the Reaper President who trolls Shepard and occasionally takes control of a drone. His VA is lame.

Mystery surrounding the Reapers is fine, but when you reveal something about them, it needs to be done well; the Baby Terminator and Harbinger's trollish, repetitive foreshadowing aren't exactly what I'd call "good execution".

[Sable Phoenix]

The Reapers in the first game, via their single representative in the narrative, were gigantic, hideously powerful, mysterious, and terrifying in their implications. We were told almost nothing about them, but what we were told about and shown secondhand (their actions) was horrific. They were the technological equivalent of Lovecraft's Old Ones.

The Reapers in the second game, via their single representative in the narrative, were aimless, body-hopping ghosts that spewed infantile and baseless taunts. We were told almost nothing about them, but what we were told about them and shown through their own firsthand actions made little sense and was even less impressive. They were, in a word, dull.

[Mr. MannlyMan]

Sable Phoenix wrote...

The Reapers in the first game, via their single representative in the narrative, were gigantic, hideously powerful, mysterious, and terrifying in their implications. We were told almost nothing about them, but what we were told about and shown secondhand (their actions) was horrific. They were the technological equivalent of Lovecraft's Old Ones.

The Reapers in the second game, via their single representative in the narrative, were aimless, body-hopping ghosts that spewed infantile and baseless taunts. We were told almost nothing about them, but what we were told about them and shown through their own firsthand actions made little sense and was even less impressive. They were, in a word, dull.

This apparently makes you an ME1 fanboy, I guess.

[Yakko77]

Chris Priestly wrote...

Dull? While I love Jon Irenicus, the Reapers want to destroy the planet and wipe entire civilizations from exixtance. Perhaps Gamespot needs a little more perspective?

How much more perspective do they need.  Sovereign essentially nuked a large part of Eden Prime when it took off and the turian and human fleet at the Citadel I think would hardly consider the Reapers dull considering their loses.  The human Reaper in ME2 didn't have the same emotional impact because it was presented so suddenly and was destroyed almost as quickly whereas Sovereign was a threat and menace that was built up throughout ME1.

Someone at Gamestop had an axe to grind, little more.

Modifié par Yakko77, 08 avril 2011 - 12:43 .

[Yakko77]

Sable Phoenix wrote...

The Reapers in the first game, via their single representative in the narrative, were gigantic, hideously powerful, mysterious, and terrifying in their implications. We were told almost nothing about them, but what we were told about and shown secondhand (their actions) was horrific. They were the technological equivalent of Lovecraft's Old Ones.

The Reapers in the second game, via their single representative in the narrative, were aimless, body-hopping ghosts that spewed infantile and baseless taunts. We were told almost nothing about them, but what we were told about them and shown through their own firsthand actions made little sense and was even less impressive. They were, in a word, dull.

While I  basically agree with your synopsis as I liked the story of ME1 better than ME2 (though I  liked the gameplay/combat a bit better in ME2)  the Gamestop editorial slammed the Reapers as a whole, not just their portrayal in one game or the other. 

[Minister of Sound]

Sable Phoenix wrote...

The Reapers in the first game, via their single representative in the narrative, were gigantic, hideously powerful, mysterious, and terrifying in their implications. We were told almost nothing about them, but what we were told about and shown secondhand (their actions) was horrific. They were the technological equivalent of Lovecraft's Old Ones.

The Reapers in the second game, via their single representative in the narrative, were aimless, body-hopping ghosts that spewed infantile and baseless taunts. We were told almost nothing about them, but what we were told about them and shown through their own firsthand actions made little sense and was even less impressive. They were, in a word, dull.

Couldn't have said it better myself. You have officially become the "Most Intelligent Poster I've Ever Seen on the Bioware forums".

[Lvl20DM]

Minister of Sound wrote...

Sable Phoenix wrote...

The Reapers in the first game, via their single representative in the narrative, were gigantic, hideously powerful, mysterious, and terrifying in their implications. We were told almost nothing about them, but what we were told about and shown secondhand (their actions) was horrific. They were the technological equivalent of Lovecraft's Old Ones.

The Reapers in the second game, via their single representative in the narrative, were aimless, body-hopping ghosts that spewed infantile and baseless taunts. We were told almost nothing about them, but what we were told about them and shown through their own firsthand actions made little sense and was even less impressive. They were, in a word, dull.

Couldn't have said it better myself. You have officially become the "Most Intelligent Poster I've Ever Seen on the Bioware forums".

I don't know, Sovereign says the same kind of stuff when you talk to him (briefly) in ME1. Complaining about the Collectors/Harbinger being compelling versus Saren is fine - but the Reapers are consistently represented, in my opinion. Also, the Reapers aren't dull - the mystery surrounding them is pretty compelling.

[88mphSlayer]

you don't get gamers excited for 4 years to end a threat with "dull" villians...

[Sable Phoenix]

Lvl20DM wrote...

Minister of Sound wrote...

Sable Phoenix wrote...

The Reapers in the first game, via their single representative in the narrative, were gigantic, hideously powerful, mysterious, and terrifying in their implications. We were told almost nothing about them, but what we were told about and shown secondhand (their actions) was horrific. They were the technological equivalent of Lovecraft's Old Ones.

The Reapers in the second game, via their single representative in the narrative, were aimless, body-hopping ghosts that spewed infantile and baseless taunts. We were told almost nothing about them, but what we were told about them and shown through their own firsthand actions made little sense and was even less impressive. They were, in a word, dull.

Couldn't have said it better myself. You have officially become the "Most Intelligent Poster I've Ever Seen on the Bioware forums".

I don't know, Sovereign says the same kind of stuff when you talk to him (briefly) in ME1. Complaining about the Collectors/Harbinger being compelling versus Saren is fine - but the Reapers are consistently represented, in my opinion. Also, the Reapers aren't dull - the mystery surrounding them is pretty compelling.

You meet Sovereign once.  You speak with him once.  What he says is chilling because it's stated once, not as a taunt, but as a simple fact.  Not only that, but he demonstrates that he can back up exactly what he says as he pops dozens of the most advanced warships in the galaxy like they were balloons.  We defeat him by, essentially, luck.  We have no idea how we're going to get lucky enough to destroy all the rest of them.  Ostensibly, that was what Mass Effect 2 was going to be about.

Then we actually play Mass Effect 2.  We meet Harbinger once... and then we meet him again.  And again.  And again.  We can meet him potentially dozens of times in one playthrough as he posesses Collectors.  Each time, what he says is repeated often, and is furthermore totally meaningless because you kill him each time, rather easily, and in defiance of his statement that you will fail.  We defeat him by skill and because he's just not as good as we are.  We don't need any luck or any special equipment to do so.  The mystery around them is rendered moot by the only Reaper we see in the game engaging in childish, repetetive, and (according to Einstein's "repeating the same action and expecting a different result" definition of insanity) insane actions.

Modifié par Sable Phoenix, 08 avril 2011 - 01:27 .

[JamieCOTC]

Chris Priestly wrote...

Dull? While I love Jon Irenicus, the Reapers want to destroy the planet and wipe entire civilizations from exixtance. Perhaps Gamespot needs a little more perspective?

It's not what you destroy, but how you destroy it that counts. 

[Kane-Corr]

Sable Phoenix wrote...

Lvl20DM wrote...

Minister of Sound wrote...

Sable Phoenix wrote...

The Reapers in the first game, via their single representative in the narrative, were gigantic, hideously powerful, mysterious, and terrifying in their implications. We were told almost nothing about them, but what we were told about and shown secondhand (their actions) was horrific. They were the technological equivalent of Lovecraft's Old Ones.

The Reapers in the second game, via their single representative in the narrative, were aimless, body-hopping ghosts that spewed infantile and baseless taunts. We were told almost nothing about them, but what we were told about them and shown through their own firsthand actions made little sense and was even less impressive. They were, in a word, dull.

Couldn't have said it better myself. You have officially become the "Most Intelligent Poster I've Ever Seen on the Bioware forums".

I don't know, Sovereign says the same kind of stuff when you talk to him (briefly) in ME1. Complaining about the Collectors/Harbinger being compelling versus Saren is fine - but the Reapers are consistently represented, in my opinion. Also, the Reapers aren't dull - the mystery surrounding them is pretty compelling.

You meet Sovereign once.  You speak with him once.  What he says is chilling because it's stated once, not as a taunt, but as a simple fact.  Not only that, but he demonstrates that he can back up exactly what he says as pops dozens of the most advanced warships in the galaxy like they were balloons.  We defeat him by, essentially, luck.

We meet Harbinger once... and then we meet him again.  And again.  And again.  We can meet him potentially dozens of times in one playthrough as he posesses Collectors.  Each time, what he says is repeated often, and is furthermore totally meaningless because you kill him each time, rather easily, and in defiance of his statement that you will fail.  We defeat him by skill and because he's just not as good as we are.  The mystery around them is rendered moot by the only Reaper we see in the game engaging in childish, repetetive (and according to Einstein's "repeating the same action and expecting a different result" definition of insanity, insane) actions.

Sable, I absolutely agree with you about Sovereign. The only thing I will say...is that in defense of Harbinger, we technically didn't know about "him" controlling the collecters on the first playthrough. That little reveal at the end was actually pretty chilling in some respect...just knowing that the Reapers were directly involved. Though, also knowing this after the fact also does cheapen Harbinger. So, I do see your point too with that.

[wolfennights]

villains don't need reason or motivation.

Kefka in Final Fantasy VI was just an insane clown, yet he is regarded as one of the best villains ever. The game didn't try to make you feel sorry for him, or make him seem like he was actually trying to "save" the world. He wanted to destroy everything in existence for NO REASON. Yet he is still pretty damn awesome.

[Malanek]

Sable Phoenix wrote...
You meet Sovereign once.  You speak with him once.  What he says is chilling because it's stated once, not as a taunt, but as a simple fact.  Not only that, but he demonstrates that he can back up exactly what he says as he pops dozens of the most advanced warships in the galaxy like they were balloons.  We defeat him by, essentially, luck.  We have no idea how we're going to get lucky enough to destroy all the rest of them.  Ostensibly, that was what Mass Effect 2 was going to be about.

Then we actually play Mass Effect 2.  We meet Harbinger once... and then we meet him again.  And again.  And again.  We can meet him potentially dozens of times in one playthrough as he posesses Collectors.  Each time, what he says is repeated often, and is furthermore totally meaningless because you kill him each time, rather easily, and in defiance of his statement that you will fail.  We defeat him by skill and because he's just not as good as we are.  We don't need any luck or any special equipment to do so.  The mystery around them is rendered moot by the only Reaper we see in the game engaging in childish, repetetive, and (according to Einstein's "repeating the same action and expecting a different result" definition of insanity) insane actions.

I don't really agree with this. In ME1 you go one on one (well 3 on one) against Sovereign and actually, as far as I am aware, destroy it. In ME2 you haven't destroyed Harbinger, merely collector drones. I don't see why you think ME1 was luck.

I think Sovereign and Harbinger were fairly consistant in tone, although Sovereign was more remote. I thought the single most chilling moment so far was at the end of ME2 when we saw just how many were coming.

[Bluko]

*Spoilers Ahead*

Also...

*Wall of Text*

"Here's what we know: The Reapers are coming. These highly advanced
aliens indulge in galactic purging every now and again. Perhaps they
come to gather our technology; perhaps they bask in the thrill. But
after two games, the Reapers are no more interesting than the aliens in Independence Day, and we know even less about them. Surely, the developer that created Jon Irenicus can do better than this. "

ASSUMING CONTROL

HUMAN THAT WHICH YOU KNOW AS REAPERS ARE THE GREATEST VILLAINS EVER! YOUR OPINIONS ARE MEANINGLESS!

RELEASING CONTROL


I don't pay too much heed to Gamespot anymore, since in the past few years I have found them to be less then stellar. I wish they still kept the 1/10th scale for scoring games. That said of the current Gamespot bunch Kevin VanOrd is one of the few guys there opinion I can respect. Also I generally (and I think many others) tend to share his sentiments.

It's just in retrospect the events of ME2 seem rather mute in comparison to the looming threat. (Erg why is this thread in the "No Spoliers"?)

In ME1 we learn that there are these things called Reapers, and that they are probably going to kill us. Why they do this we don't know and at the time it doesn't really matter since we have to stop them no matter what. And we do manage to stop them. However we know the Reapers are still out there. At the very end of the game I remember Shepard saying "The Reapers are still out there and I'm going to find a way to stop them."

So naturally wouldn't ME2 be about you know Shepard trying to learn stuff about the Reapers? You know looking for clues as to what they did, etc.

Of course ME2 starts off with Shepard being dead for 2 years. So when Shepard is revived they're really on a time crunch. Now there are these bug dudes, the Collectors. Apparently they are kidnapping humans. Yes that's terrible and all, but why waste time dealing  with them? It's only by a hunch of a T.I.M.'s  that we even think they might be connected to the Reapers. So we play the rest of the game playing hide and go seek and with them. And ultimately we do learn they are connected to the Reapers. But that's about it, well and what happened to the Protheans.

Otherwise what else do we learn? We actually find a dead Reaper, but we don't even bother to examine it or look for any Cerberus data files. Nope we just blow it up. I realize the circumstances didn't leave a lot of room for idle exploration, but come on. This is why I don't see the point in saving the Collector base cause A) It may have indoctrination stuff lying around We already found a dead Reaper but decided to let that go anyways. Why would you save the Collector base other then to make use of the CPBs lying around?

Anyways the only other big reveal is that the Collectors are "collecting" us to make a Reaper! Yeah umm okay. So we now know for sure that the Reapers are indeed made from sentient beings. Although frankly if you listened to what Sovereign said in ME1 it was kind of alluded to that this was what they did. I mean I wonder why they are "Reapers" maybe they harvest all our corn/technology? Nevermind that a Reaper can also be associated with death in that the Grim Reapers takes your soul. So yeah to me it was kind of given that the Reapers are harvesting us, since isn't that a scary thought?

But besides learning that one detail, which really doesn't matter that much unless it somehow let's us defeat the Reapers by using Charm/Intimidate, what did we learn or accomplish? That's the thing we didn't really learn anything, we didn't even really bother to find out how we get made into a Reaper. I guess they melt us down into goo and by means of space magic a Reaper born. I feel this is as silly as telling a child babies come from the cabbage patch.

The more nagging question is why are the Collectors doing this? Why don't they just wait until the Reapers show up? Why risk revealing themselves? This just kind of makes the Reapers seem stupid. They can wait thousands of years to do stuff, but apparently Harbinger felt humans needed to be harvested right away. Why? Are the Reapers so weak/afraid that they can't handle a prepared human race? You see ME2 just damages the Reapers being omnipotent. The fact that we learn Sovereign isn't the first Reaper destroyed, that the Reapers need to keep us alive, that they apparently don't want us working together. It makes everything Sovereign said seem to be nothing more then bluffing. And then there's Harbinger. Not only are the constant taunts childish for a million year old being, but the fact that many people fail to recognize Harbinger as Reaper and not the Collector General is kind of well... bad. It should be obvious that Harbinger is a Reaper. But it isn't. Harbinger sounds nothing like Sovereign or "machine being" for  example.

So what was ME2 then but an exciting intermission? Why do I get the feeling I could easily skip ME2 and go straight into ME3 no worse for wear? Truthfully it seems the only impactful mission in ME2 is Legion's Loyatly mission dealing with the Heretic Geth.

Modifié par Bluko, 08 avril 2011 - 01:58 .

[MrFob]

I have to agree with Sable. While of course it is true that you only shoot the collector drones, you do (as a player) connect them with Harbinger. In the end, him even controlling these drones means that he uses futile actions. The Sovereign we knew from ME1 would not even have bothered with such short sighted childosh opposition.
The fact that you go one on one with Sovereign by the end of ME1 doesn't impact on it's image as much IMO since you actually defeated it already by taking out Saren and taking control over the citadel. That's how you defeat Sovereign, that's the turn of the tide. The last fight in my interpretation is just a last desperate stand off and at that point Sovereign is already no longer in control of the situation (and therefore doesn't have much choice). As long as Sovereign is in control it acts in a very subtle and careful way.
Harbinger on the other hand seems to have the need to openly taunt you (a single oh so insignificant human) by his own choice. His personal grudge against Shepard makes him seem petty in comperison to the big issues the reapers are supposed to consider.
Sovereign saw organics as less than ants, Harbinger, through his actions acknowledges a single human as important and even when concentrating on Shepard, he is beaten by him and her. And just as Sable says, not because we got lucky or had an ace up our sleeve but just because we are skilled enough to easily trample down everything the mighty reaper throws at us.
The diminishes Harbinger in particular and the reapers as a whole.

[armass]

Reaper's dull? Theyre one of the most menacing villains i have seen after the old ones in Cthulhu mythos and the Dnyarri in Star Control. They reap galaxies for crying out loud...

Modifié par armass, 08 avril 2011 - 02:00 .

[88mphSlayer]

wolfennights wrote...

villains don't need reason or motivation.

Kefka in Final Fantasy VI was just an insane clown, yet he is regarded as one of the best villains ever. The game didn't try to make you feel sorry for him, or make him seem like he was actually trying to "save" the world. He wanted to destroy everything in existence for NO REASON. Yet he is still pretty damn awesome.

there are plenty of theories why the reapers do what they do, just none of them are canon

[sympathy4saren]

Naltair wrote...

Not every villain has to be understandable, there are things that are beyond comprehension. It may not be to your liking but it is a compelling position for a villain to take especially one as alien as the Reapers.

If you read The Lord of the Rings, this applies to Sauron. You knew little but what you did know combined with the mystique was very good characterization.

[Sable Phoenix]

Malanek999 wrote...

I don't really agree with this. In ME1 you go one on one (well 3 on one) against Sovereign and actually, as far as I am aware, destroy it. In ME2 you haven't destroyed Harbinger, merely collector drones. I don't see why you think ME1 was luck.

I think Sovereign and Harbinger were fairly consistant in tone, although Sovereign was more remote. I thought the single most chilling moment so far was at the end of ME2 when we saw just how many were coming.

We didn't actually destroy Sovereign.  We destroyed his avatar, the corpse of Saren.  We got lucky that this allowed the entire 5th Fleet to pour enough firepower into him to destroy him.  There was no way to know that would happen, and until it did, the 5th Fleet was doomed because it couldn't scratch him while he was slicing one entire ship in half with each single attack.  So yes, we killed a single Reaper by luck and the slimmest of margins.

In the second game, the Reapers were reduced to the status of a meme.  Nobody takes a meme seriou--ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL.

I KNOW YOU FEEL THIS.

-- seriously.

Modifié par Sable Phoenix, 08 avril 2011 - 02:58 .

[ADLegend21]

In Me2 Harbinger is aware of how oyu killed Saren that's why sometimes when you kill his collector avatar he says "releasing control" because killing a reaper avatar makes the reaper ship vulnerable. He's just smarter and stealthier than Sovereign.

[DirtyVagrant]

I hope this will inch BioWare a liiittle closer to not having any "pre-order ME3 at Gamestop and get exclusive so-and-so"...

Eh, I doubt it.

[Shirosaki17]

This is the same guy that gave DA2 8/10. I'm sure he's bitter about that.

I have to agree that the reapers do seem pretty dull, but that's due to the writing I think. Just because they want to destroy all of civilization and have done so for the past 30 million years doesn't make them an interesting villain. ME1 did a great job of making the reapers seem imposing and a horrible threat. But with ME2 it doesn't really build upon that, especially Arrival.

[aDaigo]

Sable Phoenix wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

I don't really agree with this. In ME1 you go one on one (well 3 on one) against Sovereign and actually, as far as I am aware, destroy it. In ME2 you haven't destroyed Harbinger, merely collector drones. I don't see why you think ME1 was luck.

I think Sovereign and Harbinger were fairly consistant in tone, although Sovereign was more remote. I thought the single most chilling moment so far was at the end of ME2 when we saw just how many were coming.

We didn't actually destroy Sovereign.  We destroyed his avatar, the corpse of Saren.  We got lucky that this allowed the entire 5th Fleet to pour enough firepower into him to destroy him.  There was no way to know that would happen, and until it did, the 5th Fleet was doomed because it couldn't scratch him while he was slicing one entire ship in half with each single attack.  So yes, we killed a single Reaper by luck and the slimmest of margins.

In the second game, the Reapers were reduced to the status of a meme.  Nobody takes a meme seriou--ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL.

I KNOW YOU FEEL THIS.

-- seriously.

I hope Sovereign comes back and sets the record straight with DJ Harbinger.

[DxWill10]

So.. what? Mass Effect 2 completely cancels out their ridiculously (non-dull) villain vibe? After I played ME1, I couldn't think of a better villain in any game i've played. Sure ME2 downplays them more, but that's bc Me2 is character development, not story development