346 réponses à ce sujet

[DRTJR]

thisisme8 wrote...

Hudathan wrote...

The choices made sense just fine for me and they were very relevant to the story I experienced over the course of three games, in fact the ending made me rethink the entire series and took the story to a whole new level. I wasn't confused and I know I wasn't the only one. Apparently it just works for me so what can I say.

Interesting thing about this. . .

What we learn in ME1:
Synthetics and Organics are at war.
The Citadel is more than it seems.
Galactic civilization is a delicate thing.
One Reaper is nearly indestructible.
More are coming.

What happens in ME3:
Synthetics and Organics are at war.
The Citadel is more than is seems.
Galactic civilization is a delicate thing.
One Reaper is nearly indestructible.
More Reapers showed up.

What we learn in ME2
Sythetics and Organics can live in harmony
That in the face of sheer destruction only fanatics have the motivation
That the M-90 CAIN is effective at killing Reapers
Garrus is Bat-Turian
And the Shadow Broker is was a badass.

[thisisme8]

The Angry One wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

The PR department have told us that the brat is a "being of light" which is supposed to fight "machine devils". The codex of Klencory mentions their existence in two games. Do I believe the PR? Don't ask me.

Which is bs since Starbrat is not fighting "machine devils."

In this cycle? No. In other cycles? The Catalyst creates with the intent to oppose AI, which could qualify, and in other cycles the Reapers may have been involved in fighting synthetics as well.

Yeah like the Geth. Who they took control of and used to exterminate organics.
Or the Zha'til. Who they took control of and used to exterminate organics.

Bang up job of fighting those machine devils!

But they accomplished their goal, which was to prevent the machines from completely exterminating organics.

[The Angry One]

thisisme8 wrote...

But they accomplished their goal, which was to prevent the machines from completely exterminating organics.

By completely exterminating the Zha, and potentially exterminating the Quarians.

Again, good job!

[thisisme8]

DRTJR wrote...

What we learn in ME2
Sythetics and Organics can live in harmony

I keep seeing this as an argument as to why the cycle made no sense, when it was this harmony that allowed the cycle to end.

[thisisme8]

Hudathan wrote...

Add to that the inherent danger of fully conscious AI's, their ability to subert entire infrastructures, and how powerless we would be if it went out of control. Or the fact that the Citadel and Relays are based on technology presumably left by Protheans but proven false, implying a great power that stretches back eons of time. All this and much more were central to the themes of the ending, I don't see how anyone can simply deny the connection between the ending and the entire series.

I think the irony in it was that the Catalyst actually was what he was trying to prevent - which explains his tone, or attitude with Shepard during their conversation. . . he doesn't fully realize it.

[The Angry One]

thisisme8 wrote...

DRTJR wrote...

What we learn in ME2
Sythetics and Organics can live in harmony

I keep seeing this as an argument as to why the cycle made no sense, when it was this harmony that allowed the cycle to end.

Harmony = co-existence = NOT SYNTHESIS.

[Dracotamer]

The Angry One wrote...

Mass Effect lead writer: Drew Karpyshyn
Mass Effect 2 lead writers: Drew Karpyshyn and Mac Walters
Mass Effect 3 lead writer: Mac Walters

Draw your own conclusions.

+1

[The Angry One]

thisisme8 wrote...

I think the irony in it was that the Catalyst actually was what he was trying to prevent - which explains his tone, or attitude with Shepard during their conversation. . . he doesn't fully realize it.

And never does. Shepard's "choices" all serve to validate it's position. THIS IS THE PROBLEM HERE.

Keep in mind that the Catalyst merely states that the Crucible makes it's *method* wrong. Not it's *reasoning*, and even then it only says it's method is wrong due to arbitrary reasons (you connected the Crucible therefore you won the game?) and not because it's, you know, insane.

[Ticonderoga117]

bleetman wrote...

JamieCOTC wrote...

...but also to get more natural dialog. Hard to make impactful, player-involved scene when you pick each line.
https://twitter.com/...830230780973056

Uh huh.

What he meant to say was- Hard for him/the writing team to write natural sounding dialogue where the player got to pick each line.

Modifié par Ticonderoga117, 24 juin 2012 - 09:41 .

[DungeonHoek]

CuseGirl wrote...

DungeonHoek wrote...
Well, you just said it yourself friend. They'll make money in the SHORT TERM. Fast, sure. Maybe even alot.

But that's a problem with todays movies and entertainment. They focus far too much on the short term. And that is very bad.

Because in the short term you will make alot of money, in the long term, you will not have an established fanbase to keep coming back and pumping money into your products.

Look at the Aliens franchise, its pretty much over 40 years old. It's had some "meh" movies, and some "bleh" movies. But from 2 great movies, you've had years of comics, toy sales, video games, all sorts of junk. And within a year, ANOTHER GAME. Just after a movie which is said to be pretty good. With two more movies on the to-do list, maybe 3.

That's a long term fanbase. That's a fanbase that will be feeding the beast its money for decades more. Probably until you and I and everyone on this forum drops dead from old age.

But here, what we have is Mass Effect, and yes, its been going strong up until now. But with everything that has taken place. Between Dragon Age and especially this, I don't think we'll see that.

And I don't think they'll really care either.

I mean, the first single player DLC they come out with that we have to pay for, I'll be very surprised if the sales on that are as high as they expect. There's so much contempt swirling around this franchise and the "core" fans are so upset, I don't see them flocking to the XMB or Dashbord or whatever and emptying out the wallet.

Now, they supposedly made ME-3 in such a way to attract the CoD/Gears crowd but the game sold 3 million copies rather quickly. Those aren't new gamers, those are Bioware fans and people who picked up on the game with ME-2. Those people know what the game SHOULD have been and I dont think those people will be doling out their money in the future.

No I don't think it will.

But if the game was as good as it could have been, then that 3 million copies, probably would be been 6 million by now.

You know Skyrim?, that supposedly overrated game?, for as overrated as people like to call it. It is pretty good. With replayability, modability, fun, and even DLC that people, myself included are looking forward to. Because it gives cool stuff that people want and were asking for. The main game has not dropped in price at all other then brief sales.

I believe that has to do with its overall popularity.

Much like with Halo for the longest time, like it or hate it.

But, these games are good enough to stand on their merits.

This tuesday-wensday should prove interesting.

I only hope that I'm wrong, and Bioware has been messing with us all. And that my 83.59 wasn't yet another wasted venture.

[Dean_the_Young]

The Angry One wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

The PR department have told us that the brat is a "being of light" which is supposed to fight "machine devils". The codex of Klencory mentions their existence in two games. Do I believe the PR? Don't ask me.

Which is bs since Starbrat is not fighting "machine devils."

In this cycle? No. In other cycles? The Catalyst creates with the intent to oppose AI, which could qualify, and in other cycles the Reapers may have been involved in fighting synthetics as well.

Yeah like the Geth. Who they took control of and used to exterminate organics.
Or the Zha'til. Who they took control of and used to exterminate organics.

Bang up job of fighting those machine devils!

Your tendency to tilt at straw windmills is, as always, as impressive as your eloquence.

[Hudathan]

thisisme8 wrote...

I think the irony in it was that the Catalyst actually was what he was trying to prevent - which explains his tone, or attitude with Shepard during their conversation. . . he doesn't fully realize it.

I don't believe that at all. He doesn't order the Reapers to go around destroying every habitable planet in one fell swoop. He has no agenda against organic life except to prune the most advanced races every cycle. If he wanted organic life gone, he would have made it happen long ago. He is what he always has been, a being who imposes his concept of order on the galaxy in the hopes of preventing an outcome he believes is likely. Nothing more and nothing less. What he wants simply goes against our imperative to survive, therefore at the end of the day we still want to stop what he's doing regardless of how much we agree or disagree with his reasons.

[thisisme8]

The Angry One wrote...

thisisme8 wrote...

DRTJR wrote...

What we learn in ME2
Sythetics and Organics can live in harmony

I keep seeing this as an argument as to why the cycle made no sense, when it was this harmony that allowed the cycle to end.

Harmony = co-existence = NOT SYNTHESIS.

That's a good point, and only one option...  but does that make control the paragon option, since it removes the threat of the reapers and allows the synthetics and organics to decide for themselves?  Does that mean the the destruction option is the renegade one, since it destroys the synthetics?  Did BioWare purposefully make the interpretation of the endings to be vague like this?

[thisisme8]

Hudathan wrote...

thisisme8 wrote...

I think the irony in it was that the Catalyst actually was what he was trying to prevent - which explains his tone, or attitude with Shepard during their conversation. . . he doesn't fully realize it.

I don't believe that at all. He doesn't order the Reapers to go around destroying every habitable planet in one fell swoop. He has no agenda against organic life except to prune the most advanced races every cycle. If he wanted organic life gone, he would have made it happen long ago. He is what he always has been, a being who imposes his concept of order on the galaxy in the hopes of preventing an outcome he believes is likely. Nothing more and nothing less. What he wants simply goes against our imperative to survive, therefore at the end of the day we still want to stop what he's doing regardless of how much we agree or disagree with his reasons.

Hmmm...  true.

[Ticonderoga117]

thisisme8 wrote...
That's a good point, and only one option...  but does that make control the paragon option, since it removes the threat of the reapers and allows the synthetics and organics to decide for themselves?  Does that mean the the destruction option is the renegade one, since it destroys the synthetics?  Did BioWare purposefully make the interpretation of the endings to be vague like this?

No, no, YES! "SPECULATION FROM EVERYONE!"

[Ownedbacon]

thisisme8 wrote...

Hudathan wrote...

thisisme8 wrote...

I think the irony in it was that the Catalyst actually was what he was trying to prevent - which explains his tone, or attitude with Shepard during their conversation. . . he doesn't fully realize it.

I don't believe that at all. He doesn't order the Reapers to go around destroying every habitable planet in one fell swoop. He has no agenda against organic life except to prune the most advanced races every cycle. If he wanted organic life gone, he would have made it happen long ago. He is what he always has been, a being who imposes his concept of order on the galaxy in the hopes of preventing an outcome he believes is likely. Nothing more and nothing less. What he wants simply goes against our imperative to survive, therefore at the end of the day we still want to stop what he's doing regardless of how much we agree or disagree with his reasons.

Hmmm...  true.

It is funny that the purpose of the cycle is to prevent synthetics from destroying organic life completely, but the Reaper interference with the Geth is what caused them to expand beyond the veil. The Geth were content with Rannoch and didn't try to wipe out organics.

Reaper interference also caused the Rachni to almost conquer the galaxy.

The Reapers didn't seem to concerned with preserving life or preventing the creator/created conflict, they encouraged it.

Modifié par Ownedbacon, 24 juin 2012 - 09:57 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Dracotamer wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Mass Effect lead writer: Drew Karpyshyn
Mass Effect 2 lead writers: Drew Karpyshyn and Mac Walters
Mass Effect 3 lead writer: Mac Walters

Draw your own conclusions.

+1

Two games with poor forward planning leading to a sloppy third conclusion?

That would be hanging Walters in part for the failures of Karpyshyn, even if you wanted to simplify it like that.

[thisisme8]

The Angry One wrote...

thisisme8 wrote...

I think the irony in it was that the Catalyst actually was what he was trying to prevent - which explains his tone, or attitude with Shepard during their conversation. . . he doesn't fully realize it.

And never does. Shepard's "choices" all serve to validate it's position. THIS IS THE PROBLEM HERE.

Keep in mind that the Catalyst merely states that the Crucible makes it's *method* wrong. Not it's *reasoning*, and even then it only says it's method is wrong due to arbitrary reasons (you connected the Crucible therefore you won the game?) and not because it's, you know, insane.

Not insane, and again, that's just projection.

The trajedy involved is that even though organics and synthetics can co-exist in our cycle, the reapers are still present, are technically synthetics, and are a big threat.  So...  destroying the reapers, sadly, means destroying all synthetics.  The other options are to merge organics and synthetics together, or to control the reapers and send them off to deep space to never terrorize the galaxy again (unless you believe in IT, but that's a whole other thread).

That's why Synthesis is the "Good" option, I suppose.  Because control is what got this whole thing started in the first place (the cycle being a form of control) and destruction simply turns the tables from organics dying to synthetics dying - even if it's only for a time.  And in our perception of good and evil, synthetics dying is bad because they are aware.

None of the options are perfect, but that's part of the story - a hero who overcomes impossible odds to stop the cycle with the only methods available.  Hell, it's been hinted at us for three games now:  Defeating the reapers conventionally is impossible, we have to find a way to stop the cycle.

[The Angry One]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

The PR department have told us that the brat is a "being of light" which is supposed to fight "machine devils". The codex of Klencory mentions their existence in two games. Do I believe the PR? Don't ask me.

Which is bs since Starbrat is not fighting "machine devils."

In this cycle? No. In other cycles? The Catalyst creates with the intent to oppose AI, which could qualify, and in other cycles the Reapers may have been involved in fighting synthetics as well.

Yeah like the Geth. Who they took control of and used to exterminate organics.
Or the Zha'til. Who they took control of and used to exterminate organics.

Bang up job of fighting those machine devils!

Your tendency to tilt at straw windmills is, as always, as impressive as your eloquence.

I have two in game examples that contradict your argument.
You have nothing.

Who's tilting at windmills again?

[The Angry One]

thisisme8 wrote...

Not insane, and again, that's just projection.

Galactic scale genocide is insane by definition.

The trajedy involved is that even though organics and synthetics can co-exist in our cycle, the reapers are still present, are technically synthetics, and are a big threat.  So...  destroying the reapers, sadly, means destroying all synthetics.  The other options are to merge organics and synthetics together, or to control the reapers and send them off to deep space to never terrorize the galaxy again (unless you believe in IT, but that's a whole other thread).

False dilemma, Reapers are hybrids. It shouldn't even affect synthetics.

That's why Synthesis is the "Good" option, I suppose.  Because control is what got this whole thing started in the first place (the cycle being a form of control) and destruction simply turns the tables from organics dying to synthetics dying - even if it's only for a time.  And in our perception of good and evil, synthetics dying is bad because they are aware.

Synthetis is galactic scale violation and promotion of the Reaper ideal onto all living things, it is the worst, most evil outcome of them all.

None of the options are perfect, but that's part of the story - a hero who overcomes impossible odds to stop the cycle with the only methods available.  Hell, it's been hinted at us for three games now:  Defeating the reapers conventionally is impossible, we have to find a way to stop the cycle.

No outcome would be perfect. Whatever happens, the galaxy is devastated, billions are dead and societies changed forever.
An ending where the Reapers are truly defeated would not go against the theme of the story, it would be the logica conclusion.

[Ownedbacon]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Dracotamer wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Mass Effect lead writer: Drew Karpyshyn
Mass Effect 2 lead writers: Drew Karpyshyn and Mac Walters
Mass Effect 3 lead writer: Mac Walters

Draw your own conclusions.

+1

Two games with poor forward planning leading to a sloppy third conclusion?

That would be hanging Walters in part for the failures of Karpyshyn, even if you wanted to simplify it like that.

There were other ways the series could have gone to resolve itself. Reapers could have just been beings "ascending" other species without the whole created/creator synthetics vs. organics crap, which was a small part of the whole story. The Catalyst character and the Reapers being enslaved to the cycle are things that were not present in the previous installments. These additions retconned the Reapers and ruined them as antagonists. What happened to Harbinger?

Modifié par Ownedbacon, 24 juin 2012 - 10:03 .

[Iakus]

thisisme8 wrote...

None of the options are perfect, but that's part of the story - a hero who overcomes impossible odds to stop the cycle with the only methods available.  Hell, it's been hinted at us for three games now:  Defeating the reapers conventionally is impossible, we have to find a way to stop the cycle.

There's imperfect, then there's the endings we got, which are a whole other level of bad.  It's arbitrary, unnecessary and frankly antifun.

One should not need to be cheered up after compleing a video game.  In Conrad Verner's words "I thought you were a hero!  Heroes don't do things like this!  I wish I'd never met you!"

Similarly, at this point I wish I'd never heard of the Mass Effect franchise

[MegaSovereign]

False dilemma, Reapers are hybrids. It shouldn't even affect synthetics.

They are synthetic. While it maybe true that organic DNA make up certain components of the Reapers' bodies, their intelligence is artificial, synthetic.

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 24 juin 2012 - 10:08 .

[The Angry One]

MegaSovereign wrote...

False dilemma, Reapers are hybrids. It shouldn't even affect synthetics.

They are synthetic. While it maybe true that organic DNA make up certain components of the Reapers' bodies, their intelligence is artificial, synthetic.

They are gestalt organic intelligences, the core of their minds is organic. They are not true "synthetic" life.

[thisisme8]

The Angry One wrote...

thisisme8 wrote...

Not insane, and again, that's just projection.

Galactic scale genocide is insane by definition.

The trajedy involved is that even though organics and synthetics can co-exist in our cycle, the reapers are still present, are technically synthetics, and are a big threat.  So...  destroying the reapers, sadly, means destroying all synthetics.  The other options are to merge organics and synthetics together, or to control the reapers and send them off to deep space to never terrorize the galaxy again (unless you believe in IT, but that's a whole other thread).

False dilemma, Reapers are hybrids. It shouldn't even affect synthetics.

That's why Synthesis is the "Good" option, I suppose.  Because control is what got this whole thing started in the first place (the cycle being a form of control) and destruction simply turns the tables from organics dying to synthetics dying - even if it's only for a time.  And in our perception of good and evil, synthetics dying is bad because they are aware.

Synthetis is galactic scale violation and promotion of the Reaper ideal onto all living things, it is the worst, most evil outcome of them all.

None of the options are perfect, but that's part of the story - a hero who overcomes impossible odds to stop the cycle with the only methods available.  Hell, it's been hinted at us for three games now:  Defeating the reapers conventionally is impossible, we have to find a way to stop the cycle.

No outcome would be perfect. Whatever happens, the galaxy is devastated, billions are dead and societies changed forever.
An ending where the Reapers are truly defeated would not go against the theme of the story, it would be the logica conclusion.

I won't argue semantics, but it's not insanity.

Humans are hybrids too, the Catalyst even brings that up, would the destruction ending kill all humans?  Call it bad writing, loophole, whatever - the reapers are primarily synthetics the same way humans are primarily organics.

Synthesis was never the reaper ideal.  Preservation of order via harvest was their goal.  Their method was synthesis.

I honestly never saw how defeating the reapers was possible.  To me, defeating them minimizes the threat they posed to so many civilizations over millions of years to very little.  How did so many lose when an upstart race could have beat them so easily?  Whether that's logical or not, whatever.  It would never have made sense to me that our cycle could have defeated the reapers.  On the other hand, ending the cycle seemed feasable.