146 réponses à ce sujet

[WE_Belisarius]

No, definitley not. A cheap solution would be, that even the Reapers do not know, why they are doing this, or they lost this knowledge and stick to Sovereigns message "we are beyond your comprihansion" etc.

[Yorkston9152]

If they never even attempted to explain it or very very slightly hinted at something, then i would be fine with not knowing

but since they opened a massive "huh?" can, then i kinda do

[Linksys17]

I would have rather not known but since they did tell me anyway I'd rather it be for a more evil or selfish purpose like just harvesting resources for continued existence. This whole "justifying" reapers motives makes them seem more idiotic then good. Hmmm... What's better stupid or evil....

[Midwat]

Ziggeh wrote...
But ME was a far more active experience. The players response to the questions and morality was a major part of the way in which they function and engage. Everything in it's universe is created with this same purpose, and while I can see the argument for having a dark, imposing antagonist sit outside of this I feel it would be a touch incongruous.

I also feel that with the importance of the Cycle in the mythology, it needed to be rejected more than broken. It needed a heavy handed coming of age metaphor. Robbing them of the power of mystery should have been the victory.

I think the morality of ME was always more in how you faced the threat than in the threat itself. You could take the difficult road of finding consensus and making peace or the more expedient one of "win at all costs."

Think of the Reapers as a rock. There are many different ways to get around the rock (climb it, go around it, blow it up), and the way you choose reveals a lot about you, but very little about the rock (it's still a rock).

Re: your second paragraph, you're not given much of an opportunity to reject the cycle's reasoning in the ending as is. You just have three Reaper-approved means of solving the problem. I agree that a satisfying ending could have been built through the rejection of the Reaper way, but we're robbed of that.

[Skull Bearer]

ME2 had all the answer I needed: They harvest organics to make more Reapers. Crazy things probably think they're doing us a favour.

[BouncyCaitian]

Harbinger: "There is a phrase in your Terran Literature which should closely approximate our existence to yours."

Shepard, suspicious: "And that is?"

Harbinger: "We are Alpha and Omega, The Beginning And The End."

[Ziggeh]

Midwat wrote...

Re: your second paragraph, you're not given much of an opportunity to reject the cycle's reasoning in the ending as is. You just have three Reaper-approved means of solving the problem. I agree that a satisfying ending could have been built through the rejection of the Reaper way, but we're robbed of that.

Oh yeah, I'm absolutely not arguing that what we got was satisfying, and if the question was "would you prefer no answer to what we got?" my head would be firmly buried in the sand. But I feel the main failing of the ending was in failing to address the established potential, and that much of that lay in the nature of the foe and the questions this could have raised for us.

I think kicking them over for being massive, galactic dicks wouldn't have been anything like as powerful as rejection of everything that they stood for, but probably a bit more powerful than agreeing to help a small glowing child break some things for reasons that are never really explained.

[Steve2911]

I think the answer itself could have been a satisfying one, that a powerful being, millions of years old, had falsely convinced itself that the only way to end war between synthetics and organics was to step in and remove organics that got too advanced.

The execution, however, was off-kilter enough to create a ton of questions and complaints. If Shepard had just acknowledged that the Catalyst was wrong in its assertion, then I can see a lot of people liking the explanation, because in the scenario we have, it's easy to think that Bioware intended the Catalyst to be correct.

[DLClol]

Stop lying to yourselves if Bioware had never told us they're reasoning you would be pissed, I know I would be.

I realise the plot we got wasn't great but don't act like giving them no reason to reap would make anyone any happier.

Modifié par DLClol, 11 avril 2012 - 10:00 .

[Midwat]

Ziggeh wrote...

Oh yeah, I'm absolutely not arguing that what we got was satisfying, and if the question was "would you prefer no answer to what we got?" my head would be firmly buried in the sand. But I feel the main failing of the ending was in failing to address the established potential, and that much of that lay in the nature of the foe and the questions this could have raised for us.

I think kicking them over for being massive, galactic dicks wouldn't have been anything like as powerful as rejection of everything that they stood for, but probably a bit more powerful than agreeing to help a small glowing child break some things for reasons that are never really explained.

That's the crux of the issue, I think. For a Reaper motivation to work, it would have had to completely floor you.

A story where the Reapers have a motive would need to be written like a murder mystery - with the reveal making everything that came before it make sense. The ending would need to have been done before Bioware started work on the first Mass Effect, in other words.

That isn't what happened.

To be fair, that would have been EXTREMELY hard to pull off, especially given the scope of the series and uncertainty of the games business.

So, in absence of a jaw-dropping reveal, I think the Reaper raison d'etre should've been kept secret.

[Flextt]

"I am unknowable, ... but I need to talk to my higher-up first to see what to do about you."

That's how I will see Sovereign now.

[DJBare]

What does that guy in the video say? "In Kansas they farm corn, in Reaperville they farm organics"; that's all I need to know.
When Sovereign states you cannot comprehend us, that's good enough for me.

Modifié par DJBare, 11 avril 2012 - 10:04 .

[CYRAX470]

Yes and no.

Yes before the Catalyst derp, and no after it. I think it's best to just leave it a mystery.

[taliefer]

it honesty never occured to me why, in any of my playthroughs. they were the big bad that wanted everyone killed, taht was enough for me. i bought sovereigns explanation in me1 and harby in me2 seemed just as bad with all his "savlation through destruction" stuff

[Iconoclaste]

Sharks kill to live and reproduce, and their "strategy" has been successful for millions of years. From a different standpoint, they help maintain some "balance" among species in the seas. No one question their "motivation" when they bite and kill humans, that's simply nature going its way. If the Reapers had the tech to "improve" sentient species (elevate them), why then resort to butchering them into mindless minions or "materials", like simple sharks? If advanced species were "tools" for keeping any kind of balance, why then not use them at the top of their capacities? The Reapers would have easily won the organic's contribution in any fight against synthetics menacing this "balance", if the situation ever grew to that point.

If we put the Reapers in Star Trek, imagine them coming out of the blue in the middle of a battle between Starfleet and the Borg. All Trekkies would rejoice at the turn of events, just to watch the Reapers side with the Borg to wipe the "organics" forces (except Data?). I doubt any Trekkie would just stare silently at the screen, then move along. Feeding them any explanation beyond that point ("Reaper motivation") is pointless. They have been deprived of entertainment, the very reason why they watch the series.

Modifié par Iconoclaste, 11 avril 2012 - 10:11 .

[Yorkston9152]

DLClol wrote...

Stop lying to yourselves if Bioware had never told us they're reasoning you would be pissed, I know I would be.

I realise the plot we got wasn't great but don't act like giving them no reason to reap would make anyone any happier.

Its like a crappy magic trick. Most people would rather be in awe of a good one and not know how its done, then see a half assed one that confuses and angers them even before you tell them how you did it. If your gonna do something that the entire mythos is based on, then you better have a damn good story behind it.

[Steve2911]

...You don't think Star Trek fans look for reasoning and motivation? Understanding so called 'enemies' is at the very heart of Picard's run of the enterprise (the movies bastardised this).

[Iconoclaste]

Steve2911 wrote...

...You don't think Star Trek fans look for reasoning and motivation? Understanding so called 'enemies' is at the very heart of Picard's run of the enterprise (the movies bastardised this).

I don't think you read my post in the way it was written.

[Asharad Hett]

No explanation needed. Just stop them.

[Ziggeh]

Midwat wrote...

To be fair, that would have been EXTREMELY hard to pull off, especially given the scope of the series and uncertainty of the games business.

So, in absence of a jaw-dropping reveal, I think the Reaper raison d'etre should've been kept secret.

I'd agree with that, but would add that I trusted them to be able to deliver and that compromising what a story could be in favour of what's safe annoys me more than almost anything else. As you can imagine, I'm frequently annoyed.

[Tunrda]

I very much wanted to know why they did. I wanted closure. I didn't like the reason that Bioware chose and felt it was kind of silly. They could have done MUCH better. But I would rather take the reason we had over not having one. Everything has a reason.

[Achaewa]

They should have sticked with the reapers harvesting races for reproduction and left their origin alone.

The Reapers were interesting to me because they were mysterious eldritch abominations who had no origin story.

Modifié par Achaewa, 11 avril 2012 - 10:18 .

[ArenCordial]

No, keep the Reaper's mysterious.  Its part of their appeal as an enemy.  They need us for reproduction thats good enough.

Modifié par ArenCordial, 11 avril 2012 - 10:17 .

[OgFux69]

I did care, and I was hoping Bioware would surprise me.

In fact, they did ''surpise''...

[Midwat]

Ziggeh wrote...

I'd agree with that, but would add that I trusted them to be able to deliver and that compromising what a story could be in favour of what's safe annoys me more than almost anything else. As you can imagine, I'm frequently annoyed.

Ah, I haven't had that sort of trust since "The X-Files" ended.

It's essentially the same problem faced by that series and "Lost" - how do you write a "mystery" series when you have no idea if this season is your last, when you have to fill a certain amount of space (20 1-hour episodes a season, 20-30 hours of gameplay) and when you're facing a looming deadline?

The sheer amount of material involved further complicates things. In a mystery movie or novel, the author is able to hint at things in a subtle way and at his/her own leisure. In Mass Effect (and the aforementioned shows), you're dealing with multiple writers and several novels' worth of stuff. Hint at something too much, and you'll give it away. Hint at something once (like the proposed "dark matter" ending, which is hinted at once in Mass Effect 2), and you risk people not seeing it and thinking the ending's coming from left field.

Basically, getting multiple people to hint at something in just the right amount through about 10 books' worth of material is a (pretty much) impossible task.