5087 réponses à ce sujet

[frypan]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

I actually really really like this idea that the Reapers were some rogue program, and the potential that the entities trapped inside are possibly unwilling participants.

Even better, I like the idea that they could have raised this question and then decided in game that they don't have enough information to decide. It'd be interesting if our scientists and crew had firm evidence that the Reapers started out as the solution to some horrible, universe-destroying problem, but we can never know what without further, extremely risky investigation.

That way, there would be a legitimate sense of doubt: are the Reapers a solution to an actual problem that we need to be worried about, or are they just a glitch, a malfunction, an AI gone insane? Could they be the extreme overreaction to a problem that doesn't exist anymore, or are they the only thing that is preventing total galactic destruction?

In this case, the three solutions would make some kind of sense: Destroy them, assuming you know better than a billion-year-old AI; Control them, keeping them in reserve in case whatever they were made to fight against is real; or merge with their consciousness to try to figure out what they were fighting against yourself. This would be especially great if the third option somehow involved "releasing" the captive minds within the reapers.

I've finally summoned the courage to start the first game again, and the forshadowing of such a situation is evident after the very first mission. The story of the marine who is returned to her family is, apart from being quite moving, also interesting as it discusses her fate as a partially assimilated husk.

Clearly her consciousness still existed, but was in a state of agony. The husks always struck me as tormented beings, and this could be a microcosm of the fate in store for those preserved in the reapers. 

As to reaper motivation, I preferred something openly malevolent, but even rogue programs can take on that characteristic.

 

[delta_vee]

frypan wrote...

I imagine a scene of the destruction of the reapers, watching them collapse and fall apart -knowing that their downfall also brings an end to the suffering of their victims. For me this would have made the ending very moving and allowed some measure of catharsis even if Shepherd had to die. He would have been releasing countless souls as part of winning the war, rather than averting some future singularity catastrophe.

I like it. Added to the list of better directions. Plus, to find out, you'd have to get up close and personal. See below.

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
[...] Even better, I like the idea that they could have raised this question and then decided in game that they don't have enough information to decide. It'd be interesting if our scientists and crew had firm evidence that the Reapers started out as the solution to some horrible, universe-destroying problem, but we can never know what without further, extremely risky investigation.

And that, to me, leads to an equally-important consideration: an excuse to board a live Reaper. Both this idea and frypan's give sufficient justification for a better final level (in my not-so-humble opinion) than the grey ruins of London, which allows for all of the following:

- No "too videogamey" boss fight.
- Plenty of conversation with, say, Harbinger.
- A good excuse for the level designers to stretch their legs creating a shifting, responsive, alien environment.
- Another way to work in the EMS mechanic, with a higher score making the level easier.
- Enough of a reason to sacrifice Shepard within the bounds of plausibility without invoking random beams of light.
- A good framework to hang a Suicide Mission team/objective mechanic.
- Probably more things than I've thought of off the top of my head.

The gameplay possibilities are, if not endless, then at least far more expansive. Ludonarrative assonance at its finest.

[frypan]

KitaSaturnyne wrote...

So, Shepard gets to Earth, and the Earth-to-Citadel beam is right in front of him. He and Hammer begin racing towards it, Harbinger firing away. Like in the game, the beam hits with a devastating, blinding explosion. Harbinger lumbers towards the beam attempting to confirm its kills (something soldiers are trained to do whenever possible, and which Harbinger doesn't do in the game).

Suddenly, an M-35 Mako vaults over a nearby embankment, damaged but operable. Shepard's piloting, having managed to survive the beam explosion, in what could potentially be his final act of defiance against the Reapers. All weapons are go. Shepard points the Mako's cannon at Harbinger's glowing eyes.

Objective: Piloting the M-35 Mako, defeat Harbinger.

As for the gameplay itself, it's been established that the giant Reaper beam emitter is a weak point, so you'd probably have to aim for that. It might take some patience, as it wouldn't just be sitting there open. In the interim, you'll have to contend with dodging giant stomping Reaper feet and other dangers that arise when piloting a tank against a 2 kilometer tall robot.

As stated before, just an idea I wanted to share.

Yes please more Mako.

I'd have to change out the final party tough, as I only had Garrus and Liara with me near the end. Tali always sits co-pilot in the Mako, no exceptions!

The thing always gets  shot up due to my lousy driving and she's needed to fix it.

[frypan]

delta_vee wrote...

And that, to me, leads to an equally-important consideration: an excuse to board a live Reaper. Both this idea and frypan's give sufficient justification for a better final level (in my not-so-humble opinion) than the grey ruins of London, which allows for all of the following:

- No "too videogamey" boss fight.
- Plenty of conversation with, say, Harbinger.
- A good excuse for the level designers to stretch their legs creating a shifting, responsive, alien environment.
- Another way to work in the EMS mechanic, with a higher score making the level easier.
- Enough of a reason to sacrifice Shepard within the bounds of plausibility without invoking random beams of light.
- A good framework to hang a Suicide Mission team/objective mechanic.
- Probably more things than I've thought of off the top of my head.

The gameplay possibilities are, if not endless, then at least far more expansive. Ludonarrative assonance at its finest.

All of those ideas work perfectly at reaching a more than satisfying conclusion with some fantastic gameplay. I just love the idea of conversation, a mainstay of the series all too absent at the end.

I'm sure its been mentioned before but the whole ending on the citadel felt like a poor attempt at that. What were those bodies piled up in the corridors for? What was going to assimilate them (and am I missing the obvious?)

Why not make the citadel the original reaper? Its arms certainly open and close in a manner that could be made sinister, like the limbs of a cuttlefish, so the visual impact could be rammed home with some clever cutscenes. It doesnt need to be sentient, Harbinger could speak for it. 

We end up in the same place but with a revelation that seems more appropriate than the off button approach we were given.

[Sable Phoenix]

frypan wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

I actually really really like this idea that the Reapers were some rogue program, and the potential that the entities trapped inside are possibly unwilling participants.

Even better, I like the idea that they could have raised this question and then decided in game that they don't have enough information to decide. It'd be interesting if our scientists and crew had firm evidence that the Reapers started out as the solution to some horrible, universe-destroying problem, but we can never know what without further, extremely risky investigation.

That way, there would be a legitimate sense of doubt: are the Reapers a solution to an actual problem that we need to be worried about, or are they just a glitch, a malfunction, an AI gone insane? Could they be the extreme overreaction to a problem that doesn't exist anymore, or are they the only thing that is preventing total galactic destruction?

In this case, the three solutions would make some kind of sense: Destroy them, assuming you know better than a billion-year-old AI; Control them, keeping them in reserve in case whatever they were made to fight against is real; or merge with their consciousness to try to figure out what they were fighting against yourself. This would be especially great if the third option somehow involved "releasing" the captive minds within the reapers.

I've finally summoned the courage to start the first game again, and the forshadowing of such a situation is evident after the very first mission. The story of the marine who is returned to her family is, apart from being quite moving, also interesting as it discusses her fate as a partially assimilated husk.

Clearly her consciousness still existed, but was in a state of agony. The husks always struck me as tormented beings, and this could be a microcosm of the fate in store for those preserved in the reapers. 

As to reaper motivation, I preferred something openly malevolent, but even rogue programs can take on that characteristic.

 

Do you mean Narali Batia?  She was quite dead, and the description made it clear she was killed by arms fire.  I don't recall anything like what you're describing in ME1.

Modifié par Sable Phoenix, 09 mai 2012 - 05:56 .

[TheMarshal]

I was really hoping that we'd have some kind of conclusion which simply factored in everything we had done up to that point and then forced us to watch the consequences of our actions, preferably from all three games (*cough*RachniChimera*cough*). A conversation with TIM/Anderson would have been fine, but I honestly was hoping that it would just be through sheer force of uniting the galaxy that we'd wind up defeating the Reapers.

[Seijin8]

Reaper motivations: A very interesting topic. I've always thought the disconnect between Sovereign's point of view and Harbinger's was illustrative that all Reapers were not on the same page.

Lets assume that their end-goals are truly alien to us, but we can still read their behavioral tendencies, and gather a direction of action, if not a purpose for it.

Is the Catalyst in charge? Maybe. We have only his (highly suspect) word for it. But what does Catalyst's control enable? A suggestion? Semi-authoritative command that is open to interpretation? Absolute obeyance? I'd say that the Catalyst's control of the Reapers is in the middle ground. The order to "Achieve goal X", with each Reaper "nation" determining its own motivation for doing so. (Just like Indoctrination, which may be a fundamental apect of the Catalyst's brand of "control", as opposed to an innate trait of the Reapers per se.)

(We also have no evidence that Harby or Sov knew of the Catalyst. If they were indoctrinated to its service, they may not have been aware of it at all.)

What sort of species went into Harbinger's creation? Probably a hive mind, one with a definitive caste system. It is only natural that Harbinger would turn the Protheans into a society/form that it perceived as useful (the Collectors). It is also natural for Harbinger to see the biological potential of humans united to their cause under a powerful leader (Shepard). To a hive perspective, perhaps the hive species has no value without its "rulers".

Sov's original attempt to influence the Rachni may also speak to an inherent preference for hive-mind collectives. It seems reasonable that a culture that is already a hive would more readily adapt to Reaperfication. Once the Rachni were out of the equation, the only "hive" around was the Geth, and Sov opted to use them.

Is this a Reaper trait, or simply a preference shared by Sov and Harby? No idea. With no third data point, we cannot draw any conclusions. Nothing about the Catalyst implies hive-centric thinking, though we have little interaction to draw on. The Catalyst may merely be an interface system between the Reaper's creator's goals and the Reapers themselves. Nothing but a PR man.

Maybe when Reapers say "you cannot understand", it is in reference to the innate nature of a hive mentality, as opposed to the individualist natures of the dominant races in our cycle.

Just some random thoughts sparked by the current discussion.

(I love this thread.)

[Seijin8]

Sable Phoenix wrote...

Do you mean Narali Batia?  She was quite dead, and the description made it clear she was killed by arms fire.  I don't recall anything like what you're describing in ME1.

I suspect this connection originates from fan fiction, probably the recently released ep 21 of "Marauder Shields" comic.  Which is amazing, btw.

Could be wrong though.

[KitaSaturnyne]

Seijin8 wrote...

Sov's original attempt to influence the Rachni may also speak to an inherent preference for hive-mind collectives. It seems reasonable that a culture that is already a hive would more readily adapt to Reaperfication. Once the Rachni were out of the equation, the only "hive" around was the Geth, and Sov opted to use them.

Were the Rachni ever indoctrinated? It's never indicated in the narrative of the trilogy.

Modifié par KitaSaturnyne, 09 mai 2012 - 06:22 .

[Seijin8]

KitaSaturnyne wrote...

Seijin8 wrote...

Sov's original attempt to influence the Rachni may also speak to an inherent preference for hive-mind collectives. It seems reasonable that a culture that is already a hive would more readily adapt to Reaperfication. Once the Rachni were out of the equation, the only "hive" around was the Geth, and Sov opted to use them.

Were the Rachni ever indoctrinated? It's never indicated in the narrative of the trilogy.

I may be misremembering, but I recall the Rachni queen indicating that the others of her species were being forced into war by an outside entity, presumably the Reapers.  As I understood it, the Rachni war was Sovereign's first attempt at creating beneficial conditions for invasion.

EDIT:  From the wiki:

"It is postulated in Mass Effect 2 that another party, likely the Reapers, manipulated the rachni into starting the war. If Commander Shepard allowed the Rachni Queen to live in the first game, an asari acting in service to the rachni says that the rachni are not an inherently hostile race. Shepard can question her on what might have caused the rachni to attack upon their discovery by the Citadel races, and Shepard can suggest mind control. The asari is uncertain, but the Rachni Queen's description of how her race was forced to resonate with a "sour note" is reminiscent of Reaper indoctrination."

Modifié par Seijin8, 09 mai 2012 - 06:26 .

[frypan]

Seijin8 wrote...

Sable Phoenix wrote...

Do you mean Narali Batia?  She was quite dead, and the description made it clear she was killed by arms fire.  I don't recall anything like what you're describing in ME1.

I suspect this connection originates from fan fiction, probably the recently released ep 21 of "Marauder Shields" comic.  Which is amazing, btw.

Could be wrong though.

Oh my goodness, I'm so terribly terribly wrong. Now I'm confusing Marauder Shields with the game itself, right at the point I'm playing that section of the game. How embarrasing, apologies to all.

Still, a testament to the credibility of Koobismo's work.

EDIT: Yep, it was Marauder Shields and the updated codex at the bottom where Narali was partially assimilated. I played that part of ME1 last night, and overnight somehow managed to synthesise the two stories. The search for a meaning to ME3 is creating its own form of indoctrination it seems.

Modifié par frypan, 09 mai 2012 - 06:45 .

[Seijin8]

No need to apologize. Koobismo's comic is good enough to wish it had been canonical.

[frypan]

Seijin8 wrote...

No need to apologize. Koobismo's comic is good enough to wish it had been canonical.

Thanks, this is why we have peer review! 

Apart from the story of marauder Shields which is amazing, the codex is well written and fits in perfectly with the interpretation I'm leaning towards. Unbelievable how quickly I took it on board as canon, but a promising sign that if Bioware can fix the ending with something that makes me go "aha" , I can forget the current mess. 

[edisnooM]

Seijin8 wrote...

No need to apologize. Koobismo's comic is good enough to wish it had been canonical.

Indeed, he's doing an exceptional job of crafting an ending I would have loved to have seen. I especially like that he worked Nihlus into it, though the logistics of it are a little hard to explain.


On the topic of the Mako, hopefully they would have tweaked the controls a bit. It would suck to find myself stuck on some ruined shell of a building while Harbinger leers above me.

Modifié par edisnooM, 09 mai 2012 - 07:07 .

[edisnooM]

I was thinking about the last bit of the game again and I found myself getting quiet annoyed, so I apologize for what will probably be ranting, but I really wanted to get this out of my system.

What absolutely infuriates me about the ending is how close it came to, if not great, at least good.

When I first played the endgame (and really the whole game) I didn't really think about the plotholes or contrivances. I may have momentarily thought it was odd how easily the Reapers took the Citadel and why hadn't they done it sooner, but Earth awaited and I was on my way.

I fought through London (Anderson was born there you know), got to the base camp, said my goodbyes (actually a pretty good part), and prepared for the final push. 

I stood against the oncoming swarm at the Thanix launcher, and felt pretty awesome as I did my Adrenaline Rush charge for the launch button at the end. Finally at the Conduit I charged down and again felt pretty awesome as Reaper lasers blasted around me, but then Shepard was hit. Wait he's back up, indomitable to the last, struggling to complete his last mission.

Then on the Citadel, again I didn't really notice the plotholes and inconsistencies. I challenged TIM, talked him into suicide (Paragonly) and then watched solemnly as Anderson and Shepard watched the Earth turn.

Here was where I thought it would end. Here is where it should have ended. Two old soldiers, fought their last battle and saved the galaxy.

It was so close.

I know there are people here from several different countries so I'll use multiple analogies.

It was like in American football, it was in the endzone, all they had to do was drop the ball.

It was like in soccer, they were in front of the goal, all they had to do was nudge it with their foot.

It was like in hockey, empty net and they were in the goalies crease, all they had to do was tap it with their stick.

But no, they tried to do something fancy, the other team got the ball (or puck), took it to the other end of the field (or rink) and scored. 

My disbelief came rushing back and I realized all the things that didn't make sense. Like how their FTL doesn't really make sense (OK not actually that bad). I saw all the cracks that I had glossed over, all the flaws I had ignored. I still loved Mass Effect but its allure had been tarnished.

Its just they came so damned close.
[/rant off] 

Anyway sorry, I just really wanted to get that out of my system and I think all my friends and family are tired of hearing about Mass Effect.

Modifié par edisnooM, 09 mai 2012 - 08:03 .

[Seijin8]

Agreed. The final scene with Anderson had retained the emotional connection. Odd game/plot things had happened, but it was acceptable. I was *there* with the narrative.

And then... well, you know.

[frypan]

Its funny I didnt even realise I was upset at the ending until the next day. I was confused and irritable but couldnt figure out why. Compared to the fist pumping elation at the end of the first two games I was at a loss to figure what went wrong. Had too much faith in Biowares storytelling I suppose.

The next morning things started to come together, and like edisnooM I started picking apart the things that annoyed me. Like turrets... oh those turrets. The one just before the final run was the worst, stuck between the conversations with Garrus and Liara. I mean come on! Only two of the most iconic characters, and we have to fend off a wave of husks between having our last moments with them. Even the desultory manner of the husks' attack suggests they were unenthusiastic about interrupting the farewells.

I envisage some sort of Marauder Shields type conversation between them.

"Oh come guys, I know its bad form, but Harby says we have to mess with Shepherds fun one more time. Get in there and make sure his farewells are ruined!"

[edisnooM]

frypan wrote...

Its funny I didnt even realise I was upset at the ending until the next day. I was confused and irritable but couldnt figure out why. Compared to the fist pumping elation at the end of the first two games I was at a loss to figure what went wrong. Had too much faith in Biowares storytelling I suppose.

The next morning things started to come together, and like edisnooM I started picking apart the things that annoyed me. Like turrets... oh those turrets. The one just before the final run was the worst, stuck between the conversations with Garrus and Liara. I mean come on! Only two of the most iconic characters, and we have to fend off a wave of husks between having our last moments with them. Even the desultory manner of the husks' attack suggests they were unenthusiastic about interrupting the farewells.

I envisage some sort of Marauder Shields type conversation between them.

"Oh come guys, I know its bad form, but Harby says we have to mess with Shepherds fun one more time. Get in there and make sure his farewells are ruined!"

Yeah that was weird. Here we are in a calm dialogue only setting and then "Husks!". Does anything happen if you don't fire at them? I never tried, but can you lose there?

[Seijin8]

That interrupt in the scene does speak to a change in the narrative direction of BioWare. Someone interjected that scene, and a room full of people did not point out how wrong and unnecessary it was. Sad.

These are *not* the same people that baited me in and then nailed me with the Darth Revan reveal. These are *not* the same people who had me believing ME1 was the greatest feat in video game storytelling ever, before I had even been given the opportunity to control Shepard. Just the energy and depth of the first scene striding through the SR-1, the use of music and camera angle to set a pace that the game remained largely true to... Not the same.

EDIT:  A few pages back, drayfish likened this thread to a wake, celebrating what was now gone, but lamenting the absence.  When I imagine those first scenes of ME1 and juxtapose it with the final scenes, there is a distinct sense of loss attached.

Modifié par Seijin8, 09 mai 2012 - 09:31 .

[frypan]

Havent tried avoiding the fight - maybe the troops nearby sort it out - that would actually be tolerable.

Maybe the husks go away if they think their trolling has failed?

[edisnooM]

Egads! I just thought of another possible plot hole. Vendetta says that it wasn't the Protheans that decided to use the Citadel as the Catalyst, so presumably when the Protheans found the plans it would already have had it incorporated. Why then wasn't it in the blueprints on Mars?

[Seijin8]

Blueprints on Mars were not complete due to Cerberus intervention. That was my impression anyway.

[MrFob]

edisnooM said...

Yeah that was weird. Here we are in a calm dialogue only setting and
then "Husks!". Does anything happen if you don't fire at them? I never
tried, but can you lose there

I don't know if you can loose there but that turret section didn't bother me in the slightest. On the contrary, I thought it enhanced the scene, yes,hear me out.
The farewells (and at the time I didn't even know they were farewells) were great, each and every one of them but they have one problem: They are stringed one after the other like pearls. As I have said a few pages back, this becomes most obvious - and annoying - during the holo-comm section when you go back to the officer and go "next!"
It's like at the end of LotR when all the hobbits stand in line to hug Frodo. Maybe you like that sort of thing but I always think moments like these are awkward in real life and they are even more in a story. The "yet another one" feeling is something you want to avoid.
And yes, the turret section is dumb and pointless but it does take your mind somewhere else, just for a second. It breaks this flow of goodbyes (even if a bit clumsily) and for that alone, I like it.
That goes for the Rannoch turret as well by the way. There the choice was to show us everything in a cutscene or to give us something to do. Of course, it doesn't really matter but it's just a filler and attention grabber.
I don't see the turrets as a gameplay element as much as I see them as a narrative pacing element.

Modifié par MrFob, 09 mai 2012 - 09:45 .

[edisnooM]

Seijin8 wrote...

Blueprints on Mars were not complete due to Cerberus intervention. That was my impression anyway.

Oh, that might make sense. I may have gotten overexcited from lack of sleep.

Still, when Liara tells the council about the Crucible, in response to what good did the weapon do the Protheans says "It was incomplete. There was a missing component. Here. Something referred to only as the Catalyst." www.youtube.com/watch 

Not concrete I grant you, but interesting.

Edit: Wait, that means the Catalyst was sitting there the whole time, listening to them talk about using it in a superweapon to beat the Reapers.

Modifié par edisnooM, 09 mai 2012 - 10:06 .

[Seijin8]

MrFob wrote...

I thought it enhanced the scene, yes,hear me out.

NO!!  HOW DARE YOU?!?

Kidding of course, hehe.  Good point about breaking the monotony of the scene.  Another option would have been to interpose cutscenes of war assets in action, more discussions like the one around the radio near Kaidan and James, anything to enhance the scene without needing the turret section per se.

You needed a break, and I didn't need a turret scene.  Surely there could be another way to do this.

I will admit though that the gripe (for me) is minimal.  One of the many things that seems glaring only because my search beams are on full-blast, scouring for details in an attempt to make sense of the finale.