Added further clarification to the title. This is not about the actual numbers of the reapers or their weapon readouts. I am not concerned with that anymore than I should be concerned with the readouts of the Death Star and X-wing fighters when I watch Star Wars. My point is about the themes of the narrative.
I've seen a couple of posts recently that discount the idea of defeating the Reapers conventionally, citing the idea as being contradictory to what the games have said over and over and over again.
I do not think it is contradictory at all, and in fact fits with the themes established in the games quite well.
In storytelling, particularly in visually oriented mediums like movies and games, there's an important tenant to remember:
Show, don't tell.
Showing the viewer/player something will almost always carry more weight and affect their perceptions of the story than something they are told. Oftentimes in storytelling this is actually exploited because the conflict can result from characters being shown to do things that they are told cannot be done.
In videogame storytelling there is another layer to this I suspect that should probably go like "Play, don't show." Letting the players actually experience something firsthand affects their perception of the story more than either showing or telling.
This is one of the many reasons that the endings are so frustrating to so many people. Because the endings tells the player information that they have played and been shown to be wrong...but that's for another thread.
This in mind, let's apply this tenant of storytelling to the subject of defeating the reapers.
We are TOLD that we cannot defeat the reapers in conventional warfare constantly throughout the games. We are told this by Admiral Hackett, Anderson, the Illusive Man, Saren, and most of all by the Reapers themselves. We are told this over and over again, as some of have pointed out.
However, what are we SHOWN? We are shown:
-The Alliance fleet defeating both the Geth and Sovereign in ME1 (with your help).
-A derilict reaper in ME2 that seems to have been defeated conventionally and gets blown up.
-Shepard and two squadmates defeating a WIP Reaper in ME2 with small arms fire.
-A Thresher maw, a (admittedly larger) kind of creature you routinely defeated in the Mako, going toe to toe and winning against Reaper.
-Shepard defeating a Reaper himself with the help of the migrant fleet.
-Shepard using missles against one and destroying it in the final mission before Harbinger appears.
What we are shown and experience as the player is that while the Reapers are a threat unlike any that the races of the galaxy have faced....they are not invincible. Shepard is routinely shown defying all the odds and beating them in straight up fights.
If you want to blame someone for promoting the idea that the united galaxies fleet could defeat the reapers in a straight up fight, blame Bioware.
Edit:
I know that all the examples I have cited can be explained away by lore such as "this was a smaller reaper" or "this one took the combined might of the whole fleet", or "that was just one Reaper". But citing such examples misses my entire point about show versus tell.
If you want to tell a story that shows the player that the reapers cannot be defeated conventionally then you should not have them defeat the reapers conventionally at almost every story beat.
Edit Edit:
Also, this isn't about "proving" whether or not the fleet could have defeated the reapers conventionally. The point is that from a storytelling standpoint, the game sends mixed messages.
Edit Edit Edit: Point of clarification.
Admitedly "conventional" is something of a misnomer on my part. As has been pointed out, most of the times Shepard has succeded has been through decidedly unconventional methods.
What I really mean by "conventional" is actually over the top hollywood style heroics that employ "conventional" means and weapons....not a plot device which may or may not be a deus ex machina.
Modifié par Sepharih, 26 mars 2012 - 07:42 .
Retour en haut
