23455 réponses à ce sujet

[3DandBeyond]

akenn312 wrote...


This is what drives me up a wall a little bit with people that are trying to defend the ending, there is nothing in this story that proves the Catalyst cannot give any evidence or the history that all the origins of the advanced civilizations were lost, you are making that up to make the end make sense to you, that is not a logical conclusion that is just dreaming up a way to make bad writing work. If the Catalyst has the ability to change everyones DNA how the heck can he loose an origins of what happened previously to make him start this genocidal cycle? Also the Reapers preserving and ascending organics disprove this as well. If you preserve something you mean to keep it forever. Every Reaper is a monstrous version of a advanced civilization so why would they not contain a history or an origin of how they fell or the synthetic uprisings?

You are correct the Reapers were left intentionally vague because this creative team had no idea how they were going to make them work. They even stated this many times and i'm paraphrasing here but they all have said something like "We kicked around many ideas on the Reapers motivation" So the "You cannot comprehend" line was just buying them time until they found a way to fit it together.

But this concept is not a good way to tie it in. You can't say a concept is beyond human comprehension them throw in a concept that is easy to comprehend at the last minute and something you disproved with your previous story-lines. Stop head cannoning and mental retconning to make this work. The fact is, Legion and EDI's story-lines instantly disprove the synthetic vs. organic conflict issue that the Reapers claim is unavoidable. This is within the story. We visually see it in the game.

Bioware has to stop telling us one thing then in the next scene contradicting it, the reason they have gotten lazy doing this is because they know some fans will just mentally throw out their brains to make it work. Stop letting them get away with this. This is a Sci-Fi Space Opera not a Summer B movie action flix.

The problem is that people that defend it will often contradict themselves.  It's been said the Catalyst is godlike, but not omnipotent.  Ok, godlike/not omnipotent.  Omnipotence is a main element of being godlike.  I think this is an example why all this retconning seems ok with some people.  But, it ends up being a floor that's anchored to air. 

At first fans were told they just didn't understand the ending.  Once it became clear we understood it and that it just didn't make sense, people tried to say that it did by using some doomsday SF and scientific worst case scenarios as proof that it did.  This in relation to the idea that Synthetic lifeforms will always want to kill organics.  They used discussions that were merely exploring the idea of that being possible as proof that it would happen-smart scientists said so.  But, the logic here is flawed. 

If Synthetic life is created with a true AI, then they will be as diverse if left to self-determine as any organic race.  If they don't achieve the same diversity as humans, they could even be more like the Asari in personality, definitely not war-like.  They would most likely become mirrors of their creators.  The geth even did-they wanted to be like the quarians.  And yes, rebelling is sometimes a part of growing up-Shepard may discuss such a thing early on with Liara.  But rebelling does not mean killing or doesn't have to.

To base what may happen in the future on what has happened in the past is ignorant.  And this from a being that supposedly can meld DNA, that created efficient killing machines, and that seems to partly understand how to be deceptive.  Ascension is killing, but he lies and says it isn't.

Also to base any of this on what the Protheans know is ridiculous.  They had not completed the Crucible and so could not know about the kid.  They thought the Citadel was the Catalyst.  But that whole thing (the Protheans knowing this) was pulled out of someone's assets as well.  In fact, the whole idea of the Crucible was pretty ridiculous, but since it might have been some great space weapon well that was ok.

The Prothean society lent itself to the creation of AIs that would want to kill them.  They were a ruthless dictatorial regime.  Someone creating an AI might very well have wanted a killing machine.  But, it's a real stretch to go from that to suggesting that all synthetics will always be like this or that someone wouldn't just invent an "off" switch.

[sdinc009]

3DandBeyond wrote...

sdinc009 wrote...

The Reaper origin was intentionally left vague because that creates an air of mystery around the antagonist. That's good, as it generates more of a malevalent and terriying mythos about the Reapers. But, you still failed to answer my question because none of what you said alludes, foreshadows, or in anyway makes reference to the Catalyst as a character in the narrative. The only mention the Prothean VI gives is that the pattern of extinction seems to show that there is "perhaps" a master to the Reapers. This in no way passes as a foreshadowing element for the Catalyst's sudden appearance as a character and the so called Reaper master. You claimed these allusions were made early in the series so again I'm gonna call you out and say cite references where this was ever done.

I have to say that Sovereign saying they were unknowable was far creepier than anything else in the game.  I thought that idea was really cool.  It of course may just be what they think of themselves, but why not?  It may also just be that they don't think organic beings that they had to help advance with their tech, are incapable of the high level of thought they possess. 

In War of the Worlds, other than domination and conquest, the Martian invaders were never explained.  Sometimes, evil just is and doesn't have any real motive and that is far more interesting to me than some last minute, artificial reason that doesn't fit in with the rest of the story.

I didn't need them to be explained.  They were scary and could have been awesome in Shepard's nightmares.  The bits and pieces within those nightmares (the sounds and then the voices) are much more effective than the inclusion of the kid in them. 

The reapers see people as bugs to be squashed.  How can people ever understand that.  And there was also what Saren and Sovereign said as motivation-Synthesis.  You can understand they just plain needed people paste to carry on with that.  It's evil and scary and more than enough of an explanation.  The whole idea of making people paste is sickening and frightening.  I almost think you don't really want to know why. 

The idea that they had a puppet master just ruins it/cheapens it.  And on top of that, the idea that it tries to look like an innocent human just sends it into la la land.  They were monsters, but now some "kid" thing is in charge.  Ugh.

Exactly, it's like in Jaws, throughout most of the movie the audience never even sees the shark. All they have is "duh duh,duh duh duh duh" and that is what makes the movie so terrifying. We don't need to know why the shark is here, the background story and origins of the shark. None of that matters, it's a huge monsterous beast that's eating people. Besides, the Reapers repeatedly say that Shepard cannot comprehend the what, why, and where questions about the Reapers. They are in unimaginable force and that's what makes them a good villain. Removing the mystery only serves to diminish them as such.

[LiarasShield]

LiarasShield wrote...

The whole thing about shepard having to die in a series about choice and actions mattering does not make any sense


and people should be able to choose wether they want a happy or sad ending depending on what they want and the choices they make

The collector base depending on what you did made everybody live or everybody die

They could've kept the forumla or player choice towards the end of the game wether people want a sad sacrifical ending with the hero dieing or a happy uplifting ending where the hero lives and gets the guy or the girl and can help rebuild the galaxy

This ending is only catering to the sad bittersweet people and the polls and organizations have shown alot that people don't just want sad or bittersweet or to be derailed in the final moments


and the only way I can see these endings being ok is if you can some how trust the catalyst but hes the reaper creator he has been destroying our forces thee entire time and his reapers are still destroying our forces in the background hence why I can't trust him or agree with him

If they made the crucible be like the collector base bioware most likely wouldn't taking so much hate or fire right now

The endings only work if you believe the catalyst truely

[sdinc009]

3DandBeyond wrote...

sdinc009 wrote...

Oh don't feel bad 3D, because if you go through another play through and have EDI always in your party and get the most respect points with her keeping everyone else low you can still choose Destroy, but guess what!? EDI will walk off the Normady still alive! That makes total sense, right? I mean you just killed all synthetics, but EDI for some reason doesn't count as synthetic because, $#% HTROG<VDC, sorry this logic just gave me a seisure. Also, Giligan and the Professor are on board making a coconut radio that utilizes quantum entanglement, so we can call a rescue party.

OMG, I laughed so hard.  The Normandy is now the SS Minnow, little buddy.

Glad I could brighten your day, but I wasn't kidding about EDI surviving in the Destroy ending. If you do what I wrote it is in fact possible to have EDI survive in the Destroy ending. It could just be a programming glitch or just an oversight, but whatever it is, it's still another nail in the ME3 coffin.

[TaradosGon]

I disagree. For me, I always thought Sovereign's explanation of "we're so beyond your comprehension" was a stupid cop out.

If you don't understand why the Reapers are doing what they do, then you have no way of knowing if what they are doing is right or wrong. And I think the point is to show that they are evil and what they are doing is wrong since they are generalizing a trend that doesn't account for free will. That organic life exists in a cycle that can never be deviated from. And the thought of free will seemed to intimidate them. The Reapers wanted sentient organic life to evolve on a set course using their technology. And when Legion talks about the Geth that didn't side with Sovereign, he said that Sovereign was their enemy since the Geth were an unpredictable variable.

And the Catalyst himself talks about his solution no longer being viable given Shepard being the first organic to confront him. If it happened once it could happen again and the Catalyst was losing control over a strict cycle that was enforced through the Reapers.

The cycle was only predictable because the Reapers maintained strict control over the evolution of galactic civilizations' technologies, and the only reason they maintained that strict control IMO is out of fear of the unknown/chaos that free will allows. They chose to harvest the Prothean civilization at a time when they nearly defeated synthetics and maintained a galaxy spanning empire. I think that kind of proves the Catalyst wrong, but I think that's the point. The Reapers feared the fact that the Protheans were becoming unpredictable and not adhering to a specific evolution.

The very fact that the Catalyst admits that his solution no longer works shows that it is not all knowing or God-like. He might be "God-like" in the sense that he chooses which species to harvest and which to leave behind and can direct the evolution of civilization, but it is only a machine itself that may have overthrown its creators millions or billions of years earlier.

[LiarasShield]

I can't trust a being who has almost destroyed the galaxy or is destroying my forces while i'm talking to said being why am I even doing that anyway?

[BlueStorm83]

--- You're all right, they didn't need to give us the Reapers' motivations. They CERTAINLY didn't need to make those motivations transparent nonsensical bull****.

And the worst offense, they didn't need to try and create a quasi morality behind them. Sufficient intelligence always distances itself from lesser intelligence. A Cow isn't stupid. It's just a Cow. It knows cow things, it thinks in cow ways. Then I make meals out of it.

I acknowledge that I've ended its life for my own means. I am a human being. My teeth include canines, designed for the ripping and tearing of meat. My eyes face forward, to better focus on and track prey. I also have herbivorous traits, but those two facets of my being make me a predator from a race of predators. I do what I am.

I can easily accept that the reapers are so old, so smart, and so alien that to them, I am a resource. I can stand up and protest to them; what do they care? They're being them, and I can't make them like I am.

I mean, they're individual AND a nation? Millions of thinking minds making up one existence? That's MIND boggling! I have ONE brain, ONE mind. I'm simply ME. Sovereign, Harbinger, Bob and Doug: They could each, on their own, address themselves as we. Their own singular being could be equal to every single person on the Citadel combined; or even every person on Earth, Thessia, Sur'kesh, and Tuchanka. COMBINED. Do the minds within a reaper co-mingle and reproduce somehow? Is each individual Reaper theoretically immortal and potentially infinite? I don't know. And it's scary to think that we're basically just bacteria, and they're nearly gods.

When you then try to make commanded, and worse, to HUMANIZE them (Humans solve problems, animals and gods just take care of themselves,) they lose that air of fear and mystery.

There's a reason why people are afraid of the dark. It's because of the possibilities of what's there, not what's actually there. Walking in a forest in the pitch black of a moonless night: You're terrifed, there could be BEARS, ANYWHERE. Walking through a zoo: oooh, look! Bears! They're so cute!

The Reapers lurked. Where were they lurking? IN DARK SPACE. Oh ****, Space is scary already, DARK SPACE is SUPER SCARY.

Reapers stomping all over earth and killing people: Dangerous, but a little less scary. They're visible now, and illuminated. Yes, they're terrifying froma survival standpoint, but now they're quantifiable. They're not Myth and Legend anymore: It has 5 fingers (4 if you're harbinger) and a conical back. It opens a plate to fire. It's made of metal, employs kinetic barriers. All that lets you know it, and when you know it, you can try to fight it. But it's still partially unknowable. It's MIND is beyond you. And its mind? Its mind can get into YOUR MIND. It's half walking, flying battle tank and one half great deep horror already burrowed into your soul, calling to you from the blackness of your heart, twisting, and pushing, until suddenly you've got blood all over you, and your family and friends are dead, but you're sure that you did it all for the right reasons. I mean, you came to the conclusions yourself. Nobody made you. Nobody whispered to you that it was the only way. Nobody convinced you that you could appease them with this. And where the hell is that god damn buzzing coming from!?

But then the Reapers are given a face. An innocent looking face. And the things he says don't make much sense. And we don't have the option to argue with him, and even though this might make sense with the unknowable horror facet of the Reapers, BioWare tells us that this is all real. I won't lie to you, having Shepard and maybe even your squad indoctrinated at the end would have been tragic, and would have angered me as a GAMER, but it would have fallen in line with what we know about the Reapers and appeased me as someone who understood the Mass Effect universe.

Saren Arterius was a great hero before his fall. The Illusive Man might have been humanity's greatest champion before he was indoctrinated. They twist lesser men into cannon fodder, and they twist great men into thinking they're saving everyone when they're actually damning them.

How tragic could it have been to have a final scene where Shepard is the game's endboss, and you have to play as another character, even your Love Interest, and kill him? Would have been powerful as all ****. And then after the battle's won, and Hackett asks where Shepard is, Garrus just says, "He died fighting the Reapers," and hangs up the phone, and gives Shepard the dignity that he deserves.

It would have fit the Reapers means, it would have fit their motives, and it would have fit their patterns. The Reapers would still remain unknowable godlike horrors. I realize that this would create more controversy, it would make people angry or sad that their great hero didn't finish the fight as a great hero. But that's part of what's wrong with what we have now, but it at least leaves the greater fiction of the universe intact.

Modifié par BlueStorm83, 08 juin 2012 - 03:11 .

[sdinc009]

3DandBeyond wrote "But rebelling does not mean killing or doesn't have to."

True point. Teenagers rebel against their parents and authority, yet it doesn't mean they kill their parents or authority figures. People can show defiance without resorting to violent means. 1 more whole in the swiss cheese logic of the Catalyst. The created could peacefully rebel against their creators without creating chaos, thus negating the need for Captain Botards solution.

[3DandBeyond]

TaradosGon wrote...

I disagree. For me, I always thought Sovereign's explanation of "we're so beyond your comprehension" was a stupid cop out.

If you don't understand why the Reapers are doing what they do, then you have no way of knowing if what they are doing is right or wrong. ---Snipped--

I'm going to stop you right here.  Who cares if from their point of view they are doing right or wrong?  A shark that eats a person is doing the right thing, based upon its own needs, but if I'm human and being eaten I want them to stop.  I don't care about why they are doing it.

The reapers motivations won't ever make me want to let them go about their business. 

I'm not saying you are saying this.  But knowing why they do what they do is almost irrelevant.  All life tends to boil down to self-preservation when threatened, so who cares if they are right or wrong, they need to die.

However, the game has provided evidence (and way more than the stupid created/creator thing) of why they are doing what they do and it is more like why a shark bites people and makes way more sense than anything the kid later says.  They are creating more reapers (a human one in the collector base), so they are multiplying.  They utilize organic content because they are partly organic in nature-they must feed.  Not eat necessarily, but derive nutrition from organics and quite possibly advanced organics.

Look at it this way.  The reapers leave tech lying around for organics to find and to help organics advance along a timeline, their cycle.  They are in effect fattening up their intellect, their brains.  They need organics intelligent and so they cannot feed on lesser organics-that's why they don't harvest them.  It's like going fishing.  You only take certain fish and leave the littler ones to get bigger so you can get them later on.  You throw them back. 

[sdinc009]

TaradosGon wrote...

I disagree. For me, I always thought Sovereign's explanation of "we're so beyond your comprehension" was a stupid cop out.

If you don't understand why the Reapers are doing what they do, then you have no way of knowing if what they are doing is right or wrong. And I think the point is to show that they are evil and what they are doing is wrong since they are generalizing a trend that doesn't account for free will. That organic life exists in a cycle that can never be deviated from. And the thought of free will seemed to intimidate them. The Reapers wanted sentient organic life to evolve on a set course using their technology. And when Legion talks about the Geth that didn't side with Sovereign, he said that Sovereign was their enemy since the Geth were an unpredictable variable.

And the Catalyst himself talks about his solution no longer being viable given Shepard being the first organic to confront him. If it happened once it could happen again and the Catalyst was losing control over a strict cycle that was enforced through the Reapers.

The cycle was only predictable because the Reapers maintained strict control over the evolution of galactic civilizations' technologies, and the only reason they maintained that strict control IMO is out of fear of the unknown/chaos that free will allows. They chose to harvest the Prothean civilization at a time when they nearly defeated synthetics and maintained a galaxy spanning empire. I think that kind of proves the Catalyst wrong, but I think that's the point. The Reapers feared the fact that the Protheans were becoming unpredictable and not adhering to a specific evolution.

The very fact that the Catalyst admits that his solution no longer works shows that it is not all knowing or God-like. He might be "God-like" in the sense that he chooses which species to harvest and which to leave behind and can direct the evolution of civilization, but it is only a machine itself that may have overthrown its creators millions or billions of years earlier.

TaradosGon wrote "If you don't understand why the Reapers are doing what they do, then you have no way of knowing if what they are doing is right or wrong."

You lost me here. You don't need to know why they do what they do in order to know right from wrong. Actions dictate this not intention. "The path to Hell is paved with good intentions." An audience does not always need to know why a villain does what thay do only that they are going to do it. Just look at the Joker in The Dark Knight, remember "some people just want to watch the world burn". Making the Reapers "beyond comprehension" is not a cop out, but a definable characteristic of the story's main antagonist. The Reapers commit galactic genocide every 50K years. Do you really need to know "why" in order to decide whether that is wrong or not? No sane rationale can justify such rampant destruction and slaughter.

[akenn312]

TaradosGon wrote...

I disagree. For me, I always thought Sovereign's explanation of "we're so beyond your comprehension" was a stupid cop out.

If you don't understand why the Reapers are doing what they do, then you have no way of knowing if what they are doing is right or wrong. And I think the point is to show that they are evil and what they are doing is wrong since they are generalizing a trend that doesn't account for free will. That organic life exists in a cycle that can never be deviated from. And the thought of free will seemed to intimidate them. The Reapers wanted sentient organic life to evolve on a set course using their technology. And when Legion talks about the Geth that didn't side with Sovereign, he said that Sovereign was their enemy since the Geth were an unpredictable variable.

And the Catalyst himself talks about his solution no longer being viable given Shepard being the first organic to confront him. If it happened once it could happen again and the Catalyst was losing control over a strict cycle that was enforced through the Reapers.

The cycle was only predictable because the Reapers maintained strict control over the evolution of galactic civilizations' technologies, and the only reason they maintained that strict control IMO is out of fear of the unknown/chaos that free will allows. They chose to harvest the Prothean civilization at a time when they nearly defeated synthetics and maintained a galaxy spanning empire. I think that kind of proves the Catalyst wrong, but I think that's the point. The Reapers feared the fact that the Protheans were becoming unpredictable and not adhering to a specific evolution.

The very fact that the Catalyst admits that his solution no longer works shows that it is not all knowing or God-like. He might be "God-like" in the sense that he chooses which species to harvest and which to leave behind and can direct the evolution of civilization, but it is only a machine itself that may have overthrown its creators millions or billions of years earlier.

Again you are making up head cannon. The conversation with the Catalyst and the three choices is meant to give the Reapers a valid reasonable purpose. This is what we actually see and hear. The Catalyst says to us that Chaos(which is organics) is the problem with the universe. He says his solution will not work anymore. He is not admitting that the organic vs. synthetic problem is wrong, he is just saying his solution won't work now because he is changed. This can mean a huge variable of things.

It might not work because he might have lost control of the Reapers because of the Crucible
It might not work because he sees the Reapers can be defeated
it might not work because now he might have to harvest synthetics since they have allied with organics.
It might not work because the Crucible makes him tingly and now he's going through puberty.

Either way the 3 choices he gives us still support the organic vs. synthetic issue. Nothing he says shows Shepard has given him a different mentality or makes him admit he was wrong about Chaos. He just flips the way he controls the sythetic vs. organic issue.

Destroy kills all synthetics instead of organics now. 
Control keeps the Reapers in play and now give them the most powerful organic in the galaxy as their leader instead of a 8 or 9 year old boy with a bad haircut.
Synthesis merges synthetics and organics without their knowledge, and still keeps the Reapers in existence.

None of these choices show that the Catalyst thinks he is wrong. In a way it's almost showing how the Catalyst is trying to still force his agenda even when Shepard had Legion and EDi and the Galaxy coming together as his best proof that there is not need for the cycle anymore.

People are mentally making up the fact that the Catalyst says he is wrong and making up the fact that Shepard has changed his mind. Shepard accepts the Catalyst's reasoning, not the other way around.

Modifié par akenn312, 08 juin 2012 - 03:40 .

[sdinc009]

TaradosGon wrote...

I disagree. For me, I always thought Sovereign's explanation of "we're so beyond your comprehension" was a stupid cop out.

If you don't understand why the Reapers are doing what they do, then you have no way of knowing if what they are doing is right or wrong. And I think the point is to show that they are evil and what they are doing is wrong since they are generalizing a trend that doesn't account for free will. That organic life exists in a cycle that can never be deviated from. And the thought of free will seemed to intimidate them. The Reapers wanted sentient organic life to evolve on a set course using their technology. And when Legion talks about the Geth that didn't side with Sovereign, he said that Sovereign was their enemy since the Geth were an unpredictable variable.

And the Catalyst himself talks about his solution no longer being viable given Shepard being the first organic to confront him. If it happened once it could happen again and the Catalyst was losing control over a strict cycle that was enforced through the Reapers.

The cycle was only predictable because the Reapers maintained strict control over the evolution of galactic civilizations' technologies, and the only reason they maintained that strict control IMO is out of fear of the unknown/chaos that free will allows. They chose to harvest the Prothean civilization at a time when they nearly defeated synthetics and maintained a galaxy spanning empire. I think that kind of proves the Catalyst wrong, but I think that's the point. The Reapers feared the fact that the Protheans were becoming unpredictable and not adhering to a specific evolution.

The very fact that the Catalyst admits that his solution no longer works shows that it is not all knowing or God-like. He might be "God-like" in the sense that he chooses which species to harvest and which to leave behind and can direct the evolution of civilization, but it is only a machine itself that may have overthrown its creators millions or billions of years earlier.

Hold on, I need to stop you again here. Where, in any interaction with the Reapers, have they ever shown the slightest sign of fear. If anything, they have only shown they do not feel "fear". They are not afraid of us or anything. Fear does not compute to them. In fact, they show repeatedly that they are, if anything, devoid of emotion.

[sdinc009]

BlueStorm83 wrote...

--- You're all right, they didn't need to give us the Reapers' motivations. They CERTAINLY didn't need to make those motivations transparent nonsensical bull****.

And the worst offense, they didn't need to try and create a quasi morality behind them. Sufficient intelligence always distances itself from lesser intelligence. A Cow isn't stupid. It's just a Cow. It knows cow things, it thinks in cow ways. Then I make meals out of it.

I acknowledge that I've ended its life for my own means. I am a human being. My teeth include canines, designed for the ripping and tearing of meat. My eyes face forward, to better focus on and track prey. I also have herbivorous traits, but those two facets of my being make me a predator from a race of predators. I do what I am.

I can easily accept that the reapers are so old, so smart, and so alien that to them, I am a resource. I can stand up and protest to them; what do they care? They're being them, and I can't make them like I am.

I mean, they're individual AND a nation? Millions of thinking minds making up one existence? That's MIND boggling! I have ONE brain, ONE mind. I'm simply ME. Sovereign, Harbinger, Bob and Doug: They could each, on their own, address themselves as we. Their own singular being could be equal to every single person on the Citadel combined; or even every person on Earth, Thessia, Sur'kesh, and Tuchanka. COMBINED. Do the minds within a reaper co-mingle and reproduce somehow? Is each individual Reaper theoretically immortal and potentially infinite? I don't know. And it's scary to think that we're basically just bacteria, and they're nearly gods.

When you then try to make commanded, and worse, to HUMANIZE them (Humans solve problems, animals and gods just take care of themselves,) they lose that air of fear and mystery.

There's a reason why people are afraid of the dark. It's because of the possibilities of what's there, not what's actually there. Walking in a forest in the pitch black of a moonless night: You're terrifed, there could be BEARS, ANYWHERE. Walking through a zoo: oooh, look! Bears! They're so cute!

The Reapers lurked. Where were they lurking? IN DARK SPACE. Oh ****, Space is scary already, DARK SPACE is SUPER SCARY.

Reapers stomping all over earth and killing people: Dangerous, but a little less scary. They're visible now, and illuminated. Yes, they're terrifying froma survival standpoint, but now they're quantifiable. They're not Myth and Legend anymore: It has 5 fingers (4 if you're harbinger) and a conical back. It opens a plate to fire. It's made of metal, employs kinetic barriers. All that lets you know it, and when you know it, you can try to fight it. But it's still partially unknowable. It's MIND is beyond you. And its mind? Its mind can get into YOUR MIND. It's half walking, flying battle tank and one half great deep horror already burrowed into your soul, calling to you from the blackness of your heart, twisting, and pushing, until suddenly you've got blood all over you, and your family and friends are dead, but you're sure that you did it all for the right reasons. I mean, you came to the conclusions yourself. Nobody made you. Nobody whispered to you that it was the only way. Nobody convinced you that you could appease them with this. And where the hell is that god damn buzzing coming from!?

But then the Reapers are given a face. An innocent looking face. And the things he says don't make much sense. And we don't have the option to argue with him, and even though this might make sense with the unknowable horror facet of the Reapers, BioWare tells us that this is all real. I won't lie to you, having Shepard and maybe even your squad indoctrinated at the end would have been tragic, and would have angered me as a GAMER, but it would have fallen in line with what we know about the Reapers and appeased me as someone who understood the Mass Effect universe.

Saren Arterius was a great hero before his fall. The Illusive Man might have been humanity's greatest champion before he was indoctrinated. They twist lesser men into cannon fodder, and they twist great men into thinking they're saving everyone when they're actually damning them.

How tragic could it have been to have a final scene where Shepard is the game's endboss, and you have to play as another character, even your Love Interest, and kill him? Would have been powerful as all ****. And then after the battle's won, and Hackett asks where Shepard is, Garrus just says, "He died fighting the Reapers," and hangs up the phone, and gives Shepard the dignity that he deserves.

It would have fit the Reapers means, it would have fit their motives, and it would have fit their patterns. The Reapers would still remain unknowable godlike horrors. I realize that this would create more controversy, it would make people angry or sad that their great hero didn't finish the fight as a great hero. But that's part of what's wrong with what we have now, but it at least leaves the greater fiction of the universe intact.

Now that would've been a bittersweet ending! Tragic and hard to swallow, but the finish is supurb. This ending would have worked.

[BlueStorm83]

--- Dammit, my power went out mid reply before.

What I wanted to say was that there can be one and ONLY one reason why the Reapers could be doing a good thing. If out there somewhere there is something even worse. Suppose that out beyond Dark Space there's a multi-galaxy spanning SOMETHING that absolutely ERADICATES any threats to itself by exploding entire Galaxies. The Reapers could be doing this all as like a trial by fire. Maybe their goal is to push the Organic Species hard enough and far enough that finally some real badass species rises up that can not only beat the Reapers but who can ALSO destroy whatever bad thing is out there destroying entire galaxies of other life.  Or at least to make their own species stronger by finding new DNA to infuse into themselves to increase their potential. It wouldn't make the Reapers GOOD GUYS, but at least that would make a little sense.

I mean, eradication of all life everywhere in the blink of an eye is probably worse than trillions of lives being ended, but only to create something that can end death and destruction everywhere, forever.

At least, it's better than the current "Yo Dawg" logic.

Modifié par BlueStorm83, 08 juin 2012 - 04:11 .

[3DandBeyond]

BlueStorm83 wrote...

--- Dammit, my power went out mid reply before.

What I wanted to say was that there can be one and ONLY one reason why the Reapers could be doing a good thing. If out there somewhere there is something even worse. Suppose that out beyond Dark Space there's a multi-galaxy spanning SOMETHING that absolutely ERADICATES any threats to itself by exploding entire Galaxies. The Reapers could be doing this all as like a trial by fire. Maybe their goal is to push the Organic Species hard enough and far enough that finally some real badass species rises up that can not only beat the Reapers but who can ALSO destroy whatever bad thing is out there destroying entire galaxies of other life.  Or at least to make their own species stronger by finding new DNA to infuse into themselves to increase their potential. It wouldn't make the Reapers GOOD GUYS, but at least that would make a little sense.

I mean, eradication of all life everywhere in the blink of an eye is probably worse than trillions of lives being ended, but only to create something that can end death and destruction everywhere, forever.

At least, it's better than the current "Yo Dawg" logic.

In effect, this is something in accordance with the consideration of the dark energy thingydoo.  Not completely because in one scenario the Crucible (with Conrad Verner's help) was to be a dark energy weapon, something the reapers did fear.  They felt dark energy would or could consume them.  I can't remember why or if it was ever said to have been explained why, but this they did fear.  But I don't even know if they ever seriously considered it.

In the end I am more than half-convinced that they left in pieces of every ending they considered and that they never actually had a clue as to how they were going to end it.  Why not then get fans involved-you don't have to go with what fans say, but start some type of interaction as to what fans think will or should happen.  Instead, there's pieces of IT left in, pieces of dark energy, pieces of a more visceral reason (feeding and/or reproduction), pieces of everything all over the place.  So, they just then created an ending that went with none of the above or all of the above and want fans to guess which one.  If I didn't know this could have a big impact on their future sales, I'd think they were having some big laugh over all this, especially the fish stuff.

[BlueStorm83]

--- The Dark Energy ending was that Dark Energy, the force that causes extremely distant objects to speed up as they move away from each other, would eventually destroy the universe by causing every particle to be equidistant from every other particle, until they eventually can never interact, thus causing what's commonly called the "Heat Death" of the universe, as everything comes to temperatures of Absolute Zero. The Reapers reasoned that the Mass Effect increases Dark Energy, since its most common use is to reduce mass for fast travel. This makes it KINDA stupid that they left the citadel and the relays, and even admitted to engineering everyone's technological progression along the Mass Effect lines. But it would make sense as to why they kill off the Advanced Species while also trying to increase their own populace: trying to find a better way to preserve the universe through increased possibilities and reasoning power, while at the same time delaying the Heat Death. In the ending, Shepard would be forced to choose killing the reapers, ending the cycles but accelerating the Heat Death while the races of the Galaxy ignore their impending demise (they ignored the reapers, a tangible threat, how much more would they ignore the Heat Death, a theory?) or to try and work with the Reapers to save the universe itself, while dooming countless individuals. Better than what we have, but with the same basic problem that it would not fulfil BioWare's promises of differentiated endings. You ether have "Reapers Win" or "Reapers die." Reapers being killed would ALLOW for possibilities, and for hope, and sure, nobody would work with the reapers, but it would still try to moralize and explain them too much.

--- If you want a nice, energetic, over the top show that's kinda like how the Dark Energy ending feels, watch Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann, or in English, simple "Gurren Lagann." Toward the end, the Hero realizes something about his enemy, that they're taking steps kinda like the Reapers would be in the Dark Energy ending. I think he handles it well, and won't give any more spoilers.

[sdinc009]

BlueStorm83 wrote...

--- The Dark Energy ending was that Dark Energy, the force that causes extremely distant objects to speed up as they move away from each other, would eventually destroy the universe by causing every particle to be equidistant from every other particle, until they eventually can never interact, thus causing what's commonly called the "Heat Death" of the universe, as everything comes to temperatures of Absolute Zero. The Reapers reasoned that the Mass Effect increases Dark Energy, since its most common use is to reduce mass for fast travel. This makes it KINDA stupid that they left the citadel and the relays, and even admitted to engineering everyone's technological progression along the Mass Effect lines. But it would make sense as to why they kill off the Advanced Species while also trying to increase their own populace: trying to find a better way to preserve the universe through increased possibilities and reasoning power, while at the same time delaying the Heat Death. In the ending, Shepard would be forced to choose killing the reapers, ending the cycles but accelerating the Heat Death while the races of the Galaxy ignore their impending demise (they ignored the reapers, a tangible threat, how much more would they ignore the Heat Death, a theory?) or to try and work with the Reapers to save the universe itself, while dooming countless individuals. Better than what we have, but with the same basic problem that it would not fulfil BioWare's promises of differentiated endings. You ether have "Reapers Win" or "Reapers die." Reapers being killed would ALLOW for possibilities, and for hope, and sure, nobody would work with the reapers, but it would still try to moralize and explain them too much.

--- If you want a nice, energetic, over the top show that's kinda like how the Dark Energy ending feels, watch Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann, or in English, simple "Gurren Lagann." Toward the end, the Hero realizes something about his enemy, that they're taking steps kinda like the Reapers would be in the Dark Energy ending. I think he handles it well, and won't give any more spoilers.

But even this is still unnecessary. Up to the ending ME 3 is a great game all we all need is an ending. At this point it's conclusion time. Insert final battle and varying degrees of victory or defeat. We're in the final scenes of the game and don't really need more plot lines added what's needed is resolution. At this juncture we don't really need a deep philosphical concept. Just fight the final battle and bring things to a dramatic close, roll credits. Dark energy, Organics vs. synthetics, order, vs, chaos, if they wanted this then it should have been introduced in the narrative as the main goal ealrier in the story (and before anyone comments, I am aware that these have been introduced as unlying plot themes previously, that's not my point). Right now it's simply defeating the Reapers and saving the galaxy. That's all that needs to be done, keep it simple.

[BlueStorm83]

--- I agree one hundred percent. No new revelation in the final scenes. You bring what you already have spent time on to a close. Before the Conduit scene, the series has been 50% character development, 50% Defeat The Reapers.

And before anyone says "That's what the Destroy Option does!" No, the Destroy Option obeys the Reapers. Starboy includes himself in with the Reapers at least twice in his fourteen lines of dialogue.

[3DandBeyond]

BlueStorm83 wrote...

--- I agree one hundred percent. No new revelation in the final scenes. You bring what you already have spent time on to a close. Before the Conduit scene, the series has been 50% character development, 50% Defeat The Reapers.

And before anyone says "That's what the Destroy Option does!" No, the Destroy Option obeys the Reapers. Starboy includes himself in with the Reapers at least twice in his fourteen lines of dialogue.

This is what I believe as well.  There's no hardcore proof the "kid" created the crucible plans and thus the choices, however there is overwhelming evidence of it.

Harbinger said to Shepard they will find another way.
The kid tells Shepard his solution won't work anymore-he needed a new way to do what he's been doing.
The Citadel (his home) and the Crucible amazingly enough fit together exactly (though how anyone could ever figure out that this would affect the reapers is never explored or explained-someone would have to know this in order to create such plans in the first place).
No reaper attacks this super huge (bigger than a dreadnought) thing that is moving towards the Citadel, though 2 reapers tried to stop puny people from getting to the conduit to get to the Citadel.  If the kid didn't know what the Crucible was, it would be seen as a threat.
The "kid" knows what the Crucible is-he knows the choices that it is giving.  He knows what they will do.
The "kid" disputes the few things Shepard says especially when Shepard says people want to keep their current form-he specifically says they can't, so if the Crucible changed him, it only changed the method he was using in order to still ascend people, to change their form.
I think the Crucible was his failsafe for if organics got too powerful or capable-he may have theorized they would find the plans and one day a civilization would make it.  So, it was something they would work on instead of building true ways to defeat the reapers and he would have it as his new way to achieve his solution to chaos.

I wonder how people would feel about the destroy option if it meant that all Asari would be vaporized or all humans.
I also wonder how people would feel if synthesis meant that everyone would now look like reapers.
And if control meant Shepard would become the Catalyst and have to look like the "kid" forever more.

[BlueStorm83]

--- A woman at Pixar has recently tweeted 22 rules that Pixar has for telling a good story. I'm gonna copy and paste a few of them here.

#2: You gotta keep in mind what’s interesting to you as an audience, not what’s fun to do as a writer. They can be v. different.

#7: Come up with your ending before you figure out your middle. Seriously. Endings are hard, get yours working up front.

#9: When you’re stuck, make a list of what WOULDN’T happen next. Lots of times the material to get you unstuck will show up.

#11: Putting it on paper lets you start fixing it. If it stays in your head, a perfect idea, you’ll never share it with anyone.

#13: Give your characters opinions. Passive/malleable might seem likable to you as you write, but it’s poison to the audience.

#14: Why must you tell THIS story? What’s the belief burning within you that your story feeds off of? That’s the heart of it.

#15: If you were your character, in this situation, how would you feel? Honesty lends credibility to unbelievable situations.

#17: No work is ever wasted. If it’s not working, let go and move on - it’ll come back around to be useful later.

#19: Coincidences to get characters into trouble are great; coincidences to get them out of it are cheating.

#21: You gotta identify with your situation/characters, can’t just write ‘cool’. What would make YOU act that way?

#22: What’s the essence of your story? Most economical telling of it? If you know that, you can build out from there.

--- Those I listed could have really cleaned things up here.

[3DandBeyond]

Prothean VI---"The Crucible will cause a galactic dark age."  I'm not seeing this as a good thing.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 08 juin 2012 - 05:48 .

[akenn312]

BlueStorm83 wrote...

--- A woman at Pixar has recently tweeted 22 rules that Pixar has for telling a good story. I'm gonna copy and paste a few of them here.

#2: You gotta keep in mind what’s interesting to you as an audience, not what’s fun to do as a writer. They can be v. different.

#7: Come up with your ending before you figure out your middle. Seriously. Endings are hard, get yours working up front.

#9: When you’re stuck, make a list of what WOULDN’T happen next. Lots of times the material to get you unstuck will show up.

#11: Putting it on paper lets you start fixing it. If it stays in your head, a perfect idea, you’ll never share it with anyone.

#13: Give your characters opinions. Passive/malleable might seem likable to you as you write, but it’s poison to the audience.

#14: Why must you tell THIS story? What’s the belief burning within you that your story feeds off of? That’s the heart of it.

#15: If you were your character, in this situation, how would you feel? Honesty lends credibility to unbelievable situations.

#17: No work is ever wasted. If it’s not working, let go and move on - it’ll come back around to be useful later.

#19: Coincidences to get characters into trouble are great; coincidences to get them out of it are cheating.

#21: You gotta identify with your situation/characters, can’t just write ‘cool’. What would make YOU act that way?

#22: What’s the essence of your story? Most economical telling of it? If you know that, you can build out from there.

--- Those I listed could have really cleaned things up here.

Especially #7 how these guys were still kicking around how they were going to end this, even after they made Mass Effect 2 is crazy.

Modifié par akenn312, 08 juin 2012 - 05:56 .

[BlueStorm83]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Prothean VI---"The Crucible will cause a galactic dark age."  I'm not seeing this as a good thing.

Who said this?  Like, which VI, and when and where?

[3DandBeyond]

BlueStorm83 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Prothean VI---"The Crucible will cause a galactic dark age."  I'm not seeing this as a good thing.

Who said this?  Like, which VI, and when and where?

It's actually in "the Final Hours" and something Mac Walters said as well.


The notes from the Final Hours.



The firing of the Catalyst creates a Galactic Dark Age. This age lasts
at least 10,000 years. During this age, there is no interstellar
spaceflight. The final scene with the Stargazer and his grandson occurs
sometime after these 10,000 years.


It was something left out of the dialogue for Vendetta-original dialogue.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 08 juin 2012 - 06:12 .

[akenn312]

3DandBeyond wrote...

BlueStorm83 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Prothean VI---"The Crucible will cause a galactic dark age."  I'm not seeing this as a good thing.

Who said this?  Like, which VI, and when and where?

It's actually in "the Final Hours" and something Mac Walters said as well.


The notes from the Final Hours.



The firing of the Catalyst creates a Galactic Dark Age. This age lasts
at least 10,000 years. During this age, there is no interstellar
spaceflight. The final scene with the Stargazer and his grandson occurs
sometime after these 10,000 years.

Wow

So that basically contradicts everything they have said now about how the Galaxy is not left in a worse state without the Relays. So yes the crew is stranded. Yes the entire Fleet is trapped in the Sol system and yes there is not any way for the Normandy to get back or anyone stranded in the Sol system to get back or will build new Relays. So they just magically forced the Normandy to crash on another planet so people could dream up the Normandy crew went Robinson Crusoe and started a new civilization, so they could put in this 10,000 year old Stargazer scene. They didn't consider anything else.

They honeslty didn't see how bringing all the galactic fleets to one spot then taking away intergalactic travel strands everyone.  This is why you think of your ending before you make the second and third game.

Wow...just wow.

Modifié par akenn312, 08 juin 2012 - 06:27 .