Ieldra2 wrote...
Would you really have liked a "conquer the galaxy" or "Reaperduction" scenario better? It would have been boring, simplistic, a plot we've seen a million times before, and it would have told us nothing new about the ME universe. I've always suspected there was more to it than that, with the Reapers' claim to "ascension", Harbinger's "We are Harbinger" and the plausible speculation we've had since ME2 that they're avatars of civilizations of past cycles. To see those suspicions come to nothing would have been an epic disappointment.
Even the Catalyst was mostly invalidated by its presentation and narrative inconsistencies. As a concept it made perfect sense. What power could shape the will of something like the Reapers but an "AI god"? What other explanation for the unified purpose of the Reapers - who were made from diverse species but mysteriously follow the same directive - could there be? Granted, even disregarding the presentation and narrative inconsistencies, it takes a great deal of emotional detachment to come to terms with it, but in cases like this, where human standards clearly don't apply, that should be obvious to anyone. IMO the greatest mistake people make is treating the Catalyst as your run-of-the-mill antagonist blown up to a galactic scale. It isn't that. It is not human, and approaching it with the mindset you bring to standard video game villains is inappropriate.
When I said I like the concepts that went into the ending, I mostly meant the final choice. But as you see, that also applies to the other elements. As I see it, the flaws lie only in the execution - from Shepard's space-magicky sacrifice in Synthesis and the presentation of the Catalyst as some sort of pseudo-divinity to the narrative inconsistency with the Rannoch plot if you made peace.
It could. Still it would have given you a personal stake in one of the ending scenarios, which would've been absent in the others. The writers clearly wanted to minimize the personal stake in favor of the big picture, and I'm totally fine with that.
I'm sorry for dragging this back up in the thread after it had been solidly buried, but I wanted to reply.
Yes, I actually would have liked it to have been that simplistic. The reason it's been used millions of times? It has worked millions of times. I'll give two prime examples of this. I know it's completely different universe and medium, but bear with me on this. There's a reason I don't think villians need some big, elaborate reasoining for what they do just to be big and eloborate.
Hannibal Lecter. I think he's the greatest antagonist in the history of cinema, and my opinion is backed up by the American Film Insitute ranking him the greatest movie villian of all-time. Did he have a big, elaborate reasoning for what he did? No, he didn't. The only motivation Hannibal Lecter had is that he was a sick bastard that enjoyed manipulating people, toying with their minds and eating their liver with chianti and fava beans, and that character was incredible. I'll use another from a similar universe - the Xenomorphs. They had NO motivation other than wiping out perceived threats and the propagation of their species, which is exactly what I argue the Reapers should have been.
Again, sorry for dragging this up, but I don't see why every antagonist needs to have some grand scheme to justify their existence.
Modifié par BringBackNihlus, 21 août 2012 - 07:51 .