Can anyone tell me in what world it's considered quality writing to make an enemy invincible just to give the writer an opportunity to resolve the conflict with a deus ex machina?
People keep saying "we can't beat the Reapers in conventional warfare, we need some sort of superweapon."
Why should that be the premise of a story? Even if you strongly feel that we cannot beat the Reapers conventionally, does it at least not feel like rather childish storytelling?
Just curious.
I don't get the point of making an enemy invincible.
Débuté par
Eain
, juil. 07 2012 08:42
Retour en haut
#2
Posté 07 juillet 2012 - 08:45
Khajiit Jzargo
-
- Members
- 1 854 messages
That's exactly what I think, They ruined the whole story by doing that.
#3
Posté 07 juillet 2012 - 08:46
RiouHotaru
-
- Members
- 4 059 messages
By that logic, Dragon Age ruined it's story by claiming the only way to end the Blight was for someone to die (a sacrifice that can be instantly negated by Awakening, no less)
#4
Posté 07 juillet 2012 - 08:47
julio77777
-
- Members
- 233 messages
It happens quite often. But how is that more "childish" than "let's all be friends and unite together against the big bad meanie" story that most people here wanted apparently ?
#5
Posté 07 juillet 2012 - 08:48
corkey sweet
-
- Members
- 1 218 messages
Eain wrote...
Can anyone tell me in what world it's considered quality writing to make an enemy invincible just to give the writer an opportunity to resolve the conflict with a deus ex machina?
People keep saying "we can't beat the Reapers in conventional warfare, we need some sort of superweapon."
Why should that be the premise of a story? Even if you strongly feel that we cannot beat the Reapers conventionally, does it at least not feel like rather childish storytelling?
Just curious.
i agree, it was a stupid idea to do that. being hard to kill is one thing, impossible is something different and stupid
#6
Posté 07 juillet 2012 - 08:49
Eain
-
- Members
- 1 501 messages
Basically if you're going to the lengths of writing a trilogy, make it a story worth telling. Right now all they did was spend two games confirming that the enemy truly was unbeatable just so that we could pull something out of our ass in the third and go "oh wait guess not."
This is what Mass Effect is now.
"Can't win."
"Nope still can't."
"Oh wait yes because space magic."
This is what Mass Effect is now.
"Can't win."
"Nope still can't."
"Oh wait yes because space magic."
#7
Posté 07 juillet 2012 - 08:51
Tealjaker94
-
- Members
- 2 947 messages
Well **** me. I guess you are the god of writing and know how people should write their villains. The Reapers being basically invincible is part of the story of Mass Effect. It makes the eventual triumph over them even sweeter.
#8
Posté 07 juillet 2012 - 08:51
arial
-
- Members
- 5 811 messages
so truejulio77777 wrote...
It happens quite often. But how is that more "childish" than "let's all be friends and unite together against the big bad meanie" story that most people here wanted apparently ?
#9
Posté 07 juillet 2012 - 08:51
MegaSovereign
-
- Members
- 10 794 messages
You can't beat them conventionally because it isn't a conventional war.
When was the last time a war only ended when the other side is absolutely obliterated? Never. In conventional war the side that does the most damage to the other wins. In the Reaper war even if you managed to wipe out 75% of the Reaper forces, the other 25% will still be relentless.
This isn't a war fought over territory or power. It's about survival.
When was the last time a war only ended when the other side is absolutely obliterated? Never. In conventional war the side that does the most damage to the other wins. In the Reaper war even if you managed to wipe out 75% of the Reaper forces, the other 25% will still be relentless.
This isn't a war fought over territory or power. It's about survival.
#10
Posté 07 juillet 2012 - 08:53
wantedman dan
-
- Members
- 3 605 messages
Thing about it is, they've obviously been proven not to be invincible.
#11
Posté 07 juillet 2012 - 08:53
Khajiit Jzargo
-
- Members
- 1 854 messages
Until ME3, the Reaper were never seen as invincible, also, Deux Ex is the worst way to end a Trilogy.Tealjaker94 wrote...
Well **** me. I guess you are the god of writing and know how people should write their villains. The Reapers being basically invincible is part of the story of Mass Effect. It makes the eventual triumph over them even sweeter.
#12
Posté 07 juillet 2012 - 08:55
julio77777
-
- Members
- 233 messages
They are invincible because of their number. Because you destroyed 3 of them using radical means doesn't mean you can destroy thousands.
#13
Posté 07 juillet 2012 - 08:55
Those Protheans
-
- Members
- 395 messages
Tealjaker94 wrote...
Well **** me. I guess you are the god of writing and know how people should write their villains. The Reapers being basically invincible is part of the story of Mass Effect. It makes the eventual triumph over them even sweeter.
Nothing sweet about it.
It was more of a joke by the time Harbinger arrived.
Actually no Rannoch was a joke too.
#14
Posté 07 juillet 2012 - 08:56
Tealjaker94
-
- Members
- 2 947 messages
I like this human. He makes sense.julio77777 wrote...
They are invincible because of their number. Because you destroyed 3 of them using radical means doesn't mean you can destroy thousands.
#15
Posté 07 juillet 2012 - 08:56
RiouHotaru
-
- Members
- 4 059 messages
You were shown that Sovereign easily decimated multiple fleets and was only defeated because he downloaded himself into Saren to try and retake the Citadel, and the destruction of the platform caused him to "die".
At the end of ME2 we're shown a screen of an outrageously large number of Sovereign-class Reapers emerging from Dark Space. It's pretty damn clear it won't be enough.
At the end of ME2 we're shown a screen of an outrageously large number of Sovereign-class Reapers emerging from Dark Space. It's pretty damn clear it won't be enough.
#16
Posté 07 juillet 2012 - 08:57
Heeden
-
- Members
- 856 messages
It's cosmicism, the idea that the universe is so old and vast there could be beings of incomprehensible might and intellect to which we as individual life-forms barely register. It's a particular theme of Lovecraft's horror which is alluded to by the C'thulu like appearence of the Reapers.
It can also be described as an "Outside Context Scenario", something completely unexpected and possibly lethal that forces a society to evolve or die.
It can also be described as an "Outside Context Scenario", something completely unexpected and possibly lethal that forces a society to evolve or die.
#17
Posté 07 juillet 2012 - 08:58
Tealjaker94
-
- Members
- 2 947 messages
That's because Bioware royally ****ed up the endings. "The bigger they are, the harder they fall" is what they were going for.Those Protheans wrote...
Tealjaker94 wrote...
Well **** me. I guess you are the god of writing and know how people should write their villains. The Reapers being basically invincible is part of the story of Mass Effect. It makes the eventual triumph over them even sweeter.
Nothing sweet about it.
It was more of a joke by the time Harbinger arrived.
Actually no Rannoch was a joke too.
#18
Posté 07 juillet 2012 - 08:58
Eain
-
- Members
- 1 501 messages
julio77777 wrote...
It happens quite often. But how is that more "childish" than "let's all be friends and unite together against the big bad meanie" story that most people here wanted apparently ?
The strength of a good villain is his weakness. The weakness of a bad villain is that he is only strong.
Achilles had his heel.
Sauron had the ring.
Darth Vader had Luke.
The Emperor had his overconfidence.
Horus had his hubris.
And so on.
Great villains are great because they do not realise the frailty of their superiority. They are boastful and vain and self-important, but we as the audience go "just you wait!" Then the protagonist exploits the villain's weakness and wins the day.
It's a really classical formula but it works for a reason. And it's even better when the protagonist has a weakness too! Ned Stark could've easily lived in King's Landing had his honour not crippled him. Rhand Al'tor is slowly going mad. Garviel Loken would've been able to see the decay in the Luna Wolves sooner had he been more willing to indulge in secrecy. What they think are their greatest strengths are in truth their greatest weaknesses, and the audience in held in suspense as they try to figure out if the protagonist will overcome his mortal flaw to exploit the one in his opponent.
The Reapers have no flaws.
At all.
Of course we needed a deus ex machina to win. The plot was specifically designed to leave the protagonist no room whatsoever. The audience was supposed to conclude that this was all a lost cause and that the universe was doomed.
A gutsy writer would've doomed the universe.
If Walters wanted for the galaxy to win afterall, then why insist that the enemy can't be beaten? Why have it repeated ad infinitum? Why smother the protagonist's ability to win and save the day just so you can show up with a total asspull out of nowhere at all and see "oh look like we can still win."
Mac Walters had three games worth of time to establish to us that the Reapers had some flaw. Three games to be a responsible writer.
Modifié par Eain, 07 juillet 2012 - 09:27 .
#19
Posté 07 juillet 2012 - 09:00
Wulfram
-
- Members
- 18 950 messages
Because a story about how people react to an unstoppable threat is different to a threat which you can hope to defeat on the battlefield.
Mass Effect at it's best was never really about the Reapers, it was about how people reacted to them. By surrendering, by denial or by standing against the inevitable. But none of these stories would have worked the same way if this was a threat.
But this is a video game. Ultimately we want to win video games. "Sorry, all your efforts were pointless, indeed doomed from the start" is not a satisfactory conclusion
Personally, I wouldn't have had the Reapers invade. At least, not for a good while longer. Keep them acting through proxies and lone vanguards like Sovereign or the Collectors, which you can defeat without devaluing the overall threat.
Maybe start the invasion later, when the galaxy actually seems sort of prepared, that would help. Part of the reason why it's difficult to have the Reapers defeated in ME3 without it seeming cheap is that the Reapers basically caught the galaxy with it's pants down. If by the time they arrived, the galaxy had done some preparing, and we'd discovered and started on our super weapon in the previous game, it would have been easier to buy that we could beat them.
Mass Effect at it's best was never really about the Reapers, it was about how people reacted to them. By surrendering, by denial or by standing against the inevitable. But none of these stories would have worked the same way if this was a threat.
But this is a video game. Ultimately we want to win video games. "Sorry, all your efforts were pointless, indeed doomed from the start" is not a satisfactory conclusion
Personally, I wouldn't have had the Reapers invade. At least, not for a good while longer. Keep them acting through proxies and lone vanguards like Sovereign or the Collectors, which you can defeat without devaluing the overall threat.
Maybe start the invasion later, when the galaxy actually seems sort of prepared, that would help. Part of the reason why it's difficult to have the Reapers defeated in ME3 without it seeming cheap is that the Reapers basically caught the galaxy with it's pants down. If by the time they arrived, the galaxy had done some preparing, and we'd discovered and started on our super weapon in the previous game, it would have been easier to buy that we could beat them.
#20
Posté 07 juillet 2012 - 09:02
Iucounou
-
- Members
- 387 messages
When an important reveal - the crucible plans - make you burst out laughing, then something is clearly wrong with the writing.
#21
Posté 07 juillet 2012 - 09:02
Eain
-
- Members
- 1 501 messages
Wulfram wrote...
Because a story about how people react to an unstoppable threat is different to a threat which you can hope to defeat on the battlefield.
So you're saying Mass Effect is an exercise in showing an end of the world scenario, and then once we as the audience realise that it's the end of the world indeed, the game goes "lol just kidding but I had you there for a moment, didn't I?"
Why not just give us an end of the world scenario, period? Why suddenly win the day with an out-of-plot, out-of-setting device? Where is the satisfaction in victory if it's not achieved by the people we've come to feel for?
Modifié par Eain, 07 juillet 2012 - 09:04 .
#22
Posté 07 juillet 2012 - 09:04
Jamie9
-
- Members
- 4 172 messages
Eain wrote...
Wulfram wrote...
Because a story about how people react to an unstoppable threat is different to a threat which you can hope to defeat on the battlefield.
So you're saying Mass Effect is an exercise in showing an end of the world scenario, and then once we as the audience realise that it's the end of the world indeed, the game goes "lol just kidding but I had you there for a moment, didn't I?"
Why not just give us an end of the world scenario, period? Why suddenly win the day with a out-of-plot, out-of-setting device? Where is the satisfaction in victory if it's not achieved by the people we've come to feel for?
Ever seen a Nicholas Cage film: "The Knowing"?
#23
Posté 07 juillet 2012 - 09:05
Tealjaker94
-
- Members
- 2 947 messages
The Reapers never came off as arrogant to you? Shepard even says in game that the Reapers weakness is that they think they have won. Just like Palpatine they know your plan and think they've made the necessary arrangements to see it fail. They are arrogant and overconfident to the very end.
Modifié par Tealjaker94, 07 juillet 2012 - 09:05 .
#24
Posté 07 juillet 2012 - 09:05
Heeden
-
- Members
- 856 messages
@Eain
You mention Horus and the Emperor, but Horus wasn't the true villain there. The true villain is Chaos which is an unbeatable enemy. Chaos was victorious in the Heresy, the crumbling Imperium is more than they could have ever hoped to have gained if Horus had been victorious.
The difference is 40k is grimdark, Mass Effect has definite overtures of hope throughout it. 1 and 2 set the scene for how powerful the Reapers were going to be. 3 told us straight out there was no hope for victory and set us a quest to build a Macguffin - deus ex machina was the only logical conclusion.
You mention Horus and the Emperor, but Horus wasn't the true villain there. The true villain is Chaos which is an unbeatable enemy. Chaos was victorious in the Heresy, the crumbling Imperium is more than they could have ever hoped to have gained if Horus had been victorious.
The difference is 40k is grimdark, Mass Effect has definite overtures of hope throughout it. 1 and 2 set the scene for how powerful the Reapers were going to be. 3 told us straight out there was no hope for victory and set us a quest to build a Macguffin - deus ex machina was the only logical conclusion.
#25
Posté 07 juillet 2012 - 09:05
Eain
-
- Members
- 1 501 messages
Jamie9 wrote...
Eain wrote...
Wulfram wrote...
Because a story about how people react to an unstoppable threat is different to a threat which you can hope to defeat on the battlefield.
So you're saying Mass Effect is an exercise in showing an end of the world scenario, and then once we as the audience realise that it's the end of the world indeed, the game goes "lol just kidding but I had you there for a moment, didn't I?"
Why not just give us an end of the world scenario, period? Why suddenly win the day with a out-of-plot, out-of-setting device? Where is the satisfaction in victory if it's not achieved by the people we've come to feel for?
Ever seen a Nicholas Cage film: "The Knowing"?
I haven't, enlighten me.
