299 réponses à ce sujet

[AxStapleton]

The Reapers aren't literally invincible. Its just that this cycle had very little time to prepare even if they listened to Shepard's warnings. Two years of preparing for something that has wiped civilisations off the face of the map for billions of years rather efficiently would mean it would still be ridiculously difficult to win conventionally. As it is, they barely prepared at all and that is why the Reapers basically almost captured every main system in 6-12 months by the end of the game.

Modifié par AxStapleton, 09 juillet 2012 - 08:01 .

[Necrotron]

The thing that doesn't make sense is...if the Reapers are invincible, why do they resort to so many stealth tactics such as sleeper agents and attacking the galaxy when they aren't ready for them?

That would seem to indicate that they aren't invincible.

[satunnainen]

Ingvarr Stormbird 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.

How it makes it "sweeter"? Did you really expect ME ending in us not being able to beat them?
I mean, you pretty much can be sure that they will be ultimately defeated right from the start of the trilogy. The only thing you really want to know, how, and hoping that it will be interesting and enjoyable.

They are won in the end. Only problem seems to be that some people have decided that the writers way of writing the story and ending the story is wrong and their way is the only acceptable way. Whatever way it is in each case.

Some people are even just happy to announce that the writers are wrong and possibly dumb and not tell what would be the correct way to beat the reapers then. Except that the writers are wrong. And everyone who agrees with writers is dumb. And hey lets open few more threads about this since this is so important.

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

Bathaius wrote...

The thing that doesn't make sense is...if the Reapers are invincible, why do they resort to so many stealth tactics such as sleeper agents and attacking the galaxy when they aren't ready for them?

That would seem to indicate that they aren't invincible.

They probably like invincible sissies. They can't be defeated no matter what, but they don't like to have their knees scraped 

[Raging_Pulse]

Indylavi wrote...

Well from what Vigil told us in ME1. They weren't thought to be invincible. During their periods of hibernation he said they were vulnerable. I thought the Arrival DLC or even the entire ME2 storyline.

Should have been about going to the relay in dark space that is connected to the Citadel and blowing that relay up. Thus killing numerous Reapers in the supernova while they slept. Plus, slowing them down by denying a relay to them. But instead we got the Collectors and Batarians

That would've laid the ground work for being able to kill the Reapers conventionally. Since, the biggest weapon they have is surprise.

That's actually pretty awesome alternative plot idea!

Conventional victory with no Deus-Ex Machina AND it would guarantee a Suicide Mission on steroids-style finale! :happy:

[Daniel_N7]

«The Reapers can't be defeated conventionally» is a premise created by Mac Walters to validate the Crucible as the only solution to the conflict. Unfortunately, as MW himself admitted in an interview (May 2012 I think) they really didn't know where the story was going when they wrote Mass Effect 1 and 2.

Their only worry was to leave things as open as possible, so they could wrap the plot in ME3 as freely as possible. Unfortunately, that ended up making the Crucible an incoherent resolution in light of your previous efforts.

Lets say Vigil would have said the Reapers couldn't be defeated conventionally, and that the Protheans where desperately trying to create an artifact that would destroy them...
Something as vague as this, in ME1, would make the Crucible an acceptable element in the narrative.

ME2 could then take place and move the narrative forward, introducing a little more information on the Crucible.

But no, we know nothing about it, we go through the previous 2 games beating impossible odds, and then ME3 comes along to tell us that the Crucible (the what?) is the only way to victory.

As far as I can understand it, it's poor writing. Having said that, I'm okay with the endings after the EC, the emotional tone of the ending improved greatly, but still, it could have been better, and the Crucible is at the heart of the narrative's shortcomings.

[McCredie64]

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.

THIS! They dug themselves a deep grave with this plot. It should've been simple, exactly like Dragon Age: Origins. Traverse the galaxy, building alliances and preparing for a final battle against the Reapers. It really was THAT easy Bioware.

[fchopin]

There was no way we could win conventionally; after Bioware set the story that the reapers came back every 50,000 years it basically meant that we could never win.
All the reapers had to do was come every 45,000 years or have a reaper keep a watch on how advanced the races were so they could come back at a stage of development that they could always harvest us and there would be nothing we could do apart for expecting a miracle.

The only reason that we won is because Bioware made the reapers look stupid and unintelligent.
The only way the reapers could have lost is something like what happened to the dinosaurs, an act of nature that nobody could prepare for.

They were made invisible and then they were made to look stupid so we could win.

[Yalision]

I found Mass Effect to interesting because of the races, science fiction, and very well written characters rather than the central conflict. Maybe I'm just a wierdo. If we were to judge the merits of Mass Effect based solely off its central conflict, then I would jump on board the argument train here, but it wasn't. At least not for me.

I can tolerate this kind of storytelling because the universe that will go on is worth enduring and accepting it. One battle cliche (which could have been worse) is easily ignored to me when measured against the rest of the awesome writing in the franchise.

[Peranor]

Domecoming wrote...

Indylavi wrote...

Well from what Vigil told us in ME1. They weren't thought to be invincible. During their periods of hibernation he said they were vulnerable. I thought the Arrival DLC or even the entire ME2 storyline.

Should have been about going to the relay in dark space that is connected to the Citadel and blowing that relay up. Thus killing numerous Reapers in the supernova while they slept. Plus, slowing them down by denying a relay to them. But instead we got the Collectors and Batarians

That would've laid the ground work for being able to kill the Reapers conventionally. Since, the biggest weapon they have is surprise.

That's actually pretty awesome alternative plot idea!

Conventional victory with no Deus-Ex Machina AND it would guarantee a Suicide Mission on steroids-style finale! :happy:

I would take that idea over the starkid any day.

[Joccaren]

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.

Eh, I'd liken it to going up against the world Champion Starcraft player, then activating god mode the second he attacks your base so none of you're units can die, and so that you have no chance of losing.

Did you beat the world's best?
Sure!
Did you cheating make it less satisfying?
Yep.

The Crucible is a cheat code that really cheapens the whole comflict. If the conflict is impossible to lose, why even bother fighting?
No matter what you do, you win. Why did I go to Tuchanka again? Why did I visit Rannoch?
Most of ME3's plot seems to be about faffing around whilst the Crucible is built, then hitting the "Win" button. Its like trying to play while your friend searches up the cheat codes on Google. It had potential, but it blew it.

[AlexMBrennan]

Do people complain about not being able to beat the blight conventionally? How is killing the Archdemon fundamentally different from building an anti-Reaper doomsday weapon? [Well, other than actually involving the protagonist but never mind that]

Do people complain about the heroes not being able to beat Sauron conventionally (or whatever, I only watched the movies, sorry)? Instead, you need to destroy The One Ring to win.

Do people complain about the heroes not being able to take out the Death Star with conventional means, instead relying to space magic pilots with ridiculous aiming skills to hit the one weak point?

Etc.

Fact is, if it was possible to beat the enemy conventionally then this kind of story simply wouldn't work.

Modifié par AlexMBrennan, 09 juillet 2012 - 09:54 .

[Peranor]

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

[Joccaren]

fchopin wrote...

All the reapers had to do was come every 45,000 years or have a reaper keep a watch on how advanced the races were

What, you mean like Sovereign?

so they could come back at a stage of development that they could always harvest us and there would be nothing we could do apart for expecting a miracle.

Like Sovereign was supposed to enable them to do with the Citadel Relay in ME1 before we stopped him?

Really, those two things DID happen. We stopped them from happening thanks to the Protheans and our actions in ME1. Did you play ME1?

The only reason that we won is because Bioware made the reapers look stupid and unintelligent.
The only way the reapers could have lost is something like what happened to the dinosaurs, an act of nature that nobody could prepare for.

They were made invisible and then they were made to look stupid so we could win.

The were made Invincible in ME3 to set up the Crucible plot. Prior to that it was always a case of "We've taken away their advantages, now we need to gather up everyone to fight them". The Reapers tried what you suggested. We stopped them. Then we reverse engineered their weapons, and equipped ourselves with them, whilst forcing them to fly in from Darkspace, wasting valuable time and energy. In ME3, we united the galaxy to fight them with their own technology, and with our superior numbers. The only person who ever made them out to be invincible was Hackett. However, we manage to win a military victory over them at Earth, at least temporarily: We manage to fight our way through their lines to Earth and to the Citadel, and take control of the Citadel's space whilst protecting and guiding the Crucible. The Reapers have never been invincible. They just are for the DEM.

[Joccaren]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

Do people complain about not being able to beat the blight conventionally? How is killing the Archdemon fundamentally different from building an anti-Reaper doomsday weapon? [Well, other than actually involving the protagonist but never mind that]

We did defeat the blight conventionally. We gathered up an army, took it to Denerim, kicked Darkspawn ass then killed the Archdemon controlling the Darkspawn. What is unconventional about that? We used armies to win, not a magical sword we found in some distant corner of the world.

Do people complain about the heroes not being able to beat Sauron conventionally (or whatever, I only watched the movies, sorry)? Instead, you need to destroy The One Ring to win.

Sauron was already defeated conventionally. He's just not dead yet, and his armies are still fighting. We gather a conventional army to fight his whilst Frodo takes the Ring that can end his undeath and destroys it. Somewhat unconventional, though it doesn't involve Frodo finding an ancient spell that he just gets Gandalf to cast before he wins.

Do people complain about the heroes not being able to take out the Death Star with conventional means, instead relying to space magic pilots with ridiculous aiming skills to hit the one weak point?

Dude.
They fly a bomber up to the Deathstar, and bomb it in its weak point to kill it. How is that not conventional?
Luke didn't gain some magical force power that he was able to use to destroy the Death star and all the Sith in one blow, he had to bring the Rebel armada to bare, whilst fighting on foot and in the sky to shoot the vulnerable points of the Deathstar. Conventional fighting, not magic BS.

Fact is, if it was possible to beat the enemy conventionally then this kind of story simply wouldn't work.

Most of your examples are conventional victory, at least compared to ME3. We don't get to target the Reaper weak point in ME3. We don't get to bring our armies against them, kill their leader, then watch as they topple without direction.
What we have is an instant win button that is the only way we can use to defeat the Reapers. Press it and you win through space magic. Don't press it and your fleets are wiped.

[Bfler]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

Do people complain about not being able to beat the blight conventionally? How is killing the Archdemon fundamentally different from building an anti-Reaper doomsday weapon? [Well, other than actually involving the protagonist but never mind that]
 

The Archdemon is a transformed old god, who leads the darkspawn to the surface. The blight ends with his death and that is why we have to kill him.
He isn't a superweapon, but rather the equivalent to the catalyst. 

Modifié par Bfler, 09 juillet 2012 - 10:22 .

[fchopin]

Joccaren wrote...

fchopin wrote...

All the reapers had to do was come every 45,000 years or have a reaper keep a watch on how advanced the races were

What, you mean like Sovereign?

so they could come back at a stage of development that they could always harvest us and there would be nothing we could do apart for expecting a miracle.

Like Sovereign was supposed to enable them to do with the Citadel Relay in ME1 before we stopped him?

Really, those two things DID happen. We stopped them from happening thanks to the Protheans and our actions in ME1. Did you play ME1?

Obviously Sovereign did not do his homework correctly or there would have been no chance to stop him. All he had to do was start the process a few thousand years earlier and there would be nothing we could do.
 
By us stopping Sovereign means Bioware made the reapers look stupid so we could win.  

[avenging_teabag]

satunnainen wrote...

Ingvarr Stormbird 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.

How it makes it "sweeter"? Did you really expect ME ending in us not being able to beat them?
I mean, you pretty much can be sure that they will be ultimately defeated right from the start of the trilogy. The only thing you really want to know, how, and hoping that it will be interesting and enjoyable.

They are won in the end. Only problem seems to be that some people have decided that the writers way of writing the story and ending the story is wrong and their way is the only acceptable way. Whatever way it is in each case.

Some people are even just happy to announce that the writers are wrong and possibly dumb and not tell what would be the correct way to beat the reapers then. Except that the writers are wrong. And everyone who agrees with writers is dumb. And hey lets open few more threads about this since this is so important.

Ending your story on a deus ex machina is bad writing. Terrible writing, in fact. I'm sorry, but people who agree with the writers - who first wrote themselves into a corner and then resorted to a clumsy deus ex machina to write themselves out of it, are... well, i won't say "dumb", but they have no idea how stories are supposed to work.

Even if reapers are unbeatable conventionally (i'm willing to accept that), the superweapon asspull is the absolutely the worst way to handle that plot. If they're unbeatable, have the f**ing balls to make them unbeatable. Make them like Shivans in Star Control 2, basically. But that would be an entirely different story, wouldn't it be?

Or, alternately, make Shepard pull an ace out of his sleeve, but lay some freaking groundwork for it. You're a writer, use your freaking imagination. They had enough anchors in the previous games to build some sort of solution - the dark energy, the keepers (my favorite), the prothean beacons. Any number of things could be chosen to circumvent the "reapers are unbeatable" angle - if that was what they were going for. Instead they chose a moronic plot device that makes no sense and breaks every narrative thread laid down over the course of the previous two games. Yeah, i think a conventional victory would be vastly preferable to THAT. Hell, shepard waking into the sunset smoking a cigar would be preferable.

[Joccaren]

fchopin wrote...

Obviously Sovereign did not do his homework correctly or there would have been no chance to stop him. All he had to do was start the process a few thousand years earlier and there would be nothing we could do.

He tried to activate the Relay several thousand years ago. It didn't work.
So, he spent the next thousand years starting the Rachni war, indoctrinating several people and searching the galaxy to find out why the hell the Citadel wasn't openning. Along the way, he found out about the Conduit. Then he indoctrinated Saren, and hatched his master plan to take the Citadel and activate the Relay. Why didn't he just fly in and do it?
He would have been destroyed instantly. Sovereign, and the Reapers, are not invincible. Never were. They're not unable to be harmed or killed. They just are very hard to kill. Had Sovereign attacked without taking the Citadel with Saren and the Geth from Ilos, he wouldn't have even stood a chance.
Then Shepard comes in, stops Saren, opens the Citadel and allows the fleets to destroy Sovereign.
 

By us stopping Sovereign means Bioware made the reapers look stupid so we could win.  

Hardly, it seems more an issue of you thinking Sovereign is invulnerable and omniscient, rather than just a highly advanced machine. Sovereign doesn't know everything, and he isn't so strong that he could take on the entire Citadel Fleet in a fight. He had to figure out a way to take back the Citadel, and to do so he needed to know what the hell was going on, and why the Citadel wasn't responding.

[satunnainen]

avenging_teabag wrote...

satunnainen wrote...

Ingvarr Stormbird 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.

How it makes it "sweeter"? Did you really expect ME ending in us not being able to beat them?
I mean, you pretty much can be sure that they will be ultimately defeated right from the start of the trilogy. The only thing you really want to know, how, and hoping that it will be interesting and enjoyable.

They are won in the end. Only problem seems to be that some people have decided that the writers way of writing the story and ending the story is wrong and their way is the only acceptable way. Whatever way it is in each case.

Some people are even just happy to announce that the writers are wrong and possibly dumb and not tell what would be the correct way to beat the reapers then. Except that the writers are wrong. And everyone who agrees with writers is dumb. And hey lets open few more threads about this since this is so important.

Ending your story on a deus ex machina is bad writing. Terrible writing, in fact. I'm sorry, but people who agree with the writers - who first wrote themselves into a corner and then resorted to a clumsy deus ex machina to write themselves out of it, are... well, i won't say "dumb", but they have no idea how stories are supposed to work.

Even if reapers are unbeatable conventionally (i'm willing to accept that), the superweapon asspull is the absolutely the worst way to handle that plot. If they're unbeatable, have the f**ing balls to make them unbeatable. Make them like Shivans in Star Control 2, basically. But that would be an entirely different story, wouldn't it be?

Or, alternately, make Shepard pull an ace out of his sleeve, but lay some freaking groundwork for it. You're a writer, use your freaking imagination. They had enough anchors in the previous games to build some sort of solution - the dark energy, the keepers (my favorite), the prothean beacons. Any number of things could be chosen to circumvent the "reapers are unbeatable" angle - if that was what they were going for. Instead they chose a moronic plot device that makes no sense and breaks every narrative thread laid down over the course of the previous two games. Yeah, i think a conventional victory would be vastly preferable to THAT. Hell, shepard waking into the sunset smoking a cigar would be preferable.

You forgot to open those new threads, the rest you seem to have done.

[Peranor]

avenging_teabag wrote...


Ending your story on a deus ex machina is bad writing. Terrible writing, in fact. I'm sorry, but people who agree with the writers - who first wrote themselves into a corner and then resorted to a clumsy deus ex machina to write themselves out of it, are... well, i won't say "dumb", but they have no idea how stories are supposed to work.

Even if reapers are unbeatable conventionally (i'm willing to accept that), the superweapon asspull is the absolutely the worst way to handle that plot. If they're unbeatable, have the f**ing balls to make them unbeatable. Make them like Shivans in Star Control 2, basically. But that would be an entirely different story, wouldn't it be?

Or, alternately, make Shepard pull an ace out of his sleeve, but lay some freaking groundwork for it. You're a writer, use your freaking imagination. They had enough anchors in the previous games to build some sort of solution - the dark energy, the keepers (my favorite), the prothean beacons. Any number of things could be chosen to circumvent the "reapers are unbeatable" angle - if that was what they were going for. Instead they chose a moronic plot device that makes no sense and breaks every narrative thread laid down over the course of the previous two games. Yeah, i think a conventional victory would be vastly preferable to THAT. Hell, shepard waking into the sunset smoking a cigar would be preferable.

True.
I don't think I'll ever be able to understand the people who claim that letting the game end with a "convetional" victory would have been bad writing and still in the same breath defend the writing that spawned the current type of ending.

Modifié par anorling, 09 juillet 2012 - 10:39 .

[avenging_teabag]

satunnainen wrote...

avenging_teabag wrote...

satunnainen wrote...

Ingvarr Stormbird 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.

How it makes it "sweeter"? Did you really expect ME ending in us not being able to beat them?
I mean, you pretty much can be sure that they will be ultimately defeated right from the start of the trilogy. The only thing you really want to know, how, and hoping that it will be interesting and enjoyable.

They are won in the end. Only problem seems to be that some people have decided that the writers way of writing the story and ending the story is wrong and their way is the only acceptable way. Whatever way it is in each case.

Some people are even just happy to announce that the writers are wrong and possibly dumb and not tell what would be the correct way to beat the reapers then. Except that the writers are wrong. And everyone who agrees with writers is dumb. And hey lets open few more threads about this since this is so important.

Ending your story on a deus ex machina is bad writing. Terrible writing, in fact. I'm sorry, but people who agree with the writers - who first wrote themselves into a corner and then resorted to a clumsy deus ex machina to write themselves out of it, are... well, i won't say "dumb", but they have no idea how stories are supposed to work.

Even if reapers are unbeatable conventionally (i'm willing to accept that), the superweapon asspull is the absolutely the worst way to handle that plot. If they're unbeatable, have the f**ing balls to make them unbeatable. Make them like Shivans in Star Control 2, basically. But that would be an entirely different story, wouldn't it be?

Or, alternately, make Shepard pull an ace out of his sleeve, but lay some freaking groundwork for it. You're a writer, use your freaking imagination. They had enough anchors in the previous games to build some sort of solution - the dark energy, the keepers (my favorite), the prothean beacons. Any number of things could be chosen to circumvent the "reapers are unbeatable" angle - if that was what they were going for. Instead they chose a moronic plot device that makes no sense and breaks every narrative thread laid down over the course of the previous two games. Yeah, i think a conventional victory would be vastly preferable to THAT. Hell, shepard waking into the sunset smoking a cigar would be preferable.

You forgot to open those new threads, the rest you seem to have done.

There are enough new threads on that subject to realise that ME3 story went horribly wrong pretty much from the very beginning. But if you have no problem with that story, well, aren't you a lucky one. I envy you, honestly.

[fchopin]

Joccaren wrote...

Hardly, it seems more an issue of you thinking Sovereign is invulnerable and omniscient, rather than just a highly advanced machine. Sovereign doesn't know everything, and he isn't so strong that he could take on the entire Citadel Fleet in a fight. He had to figure out a way to take back the Citadel, and to do so he needed to know what the hell was going on, and why the Citadel wasn't responding.

There would not have been a citadel fleet a few thousand years ago to stop him.
 
The reapers can start the harvesting any time they like, they don’t have to wait 50,000 years.

[Joccaren]

satunnainen wrote...

You forgot to open those new threads, the rest you seem to have done.

He does have a point, however.

When you hand in an essay that has no intro, no conclusion and no evidence to support your claims, its not that you're teacher thinks you're wrong whilst its your essay so really you're right, its that you have written a technically incorrect essay. It does not follow the proper writing conventions for an essay, and thus your teacher will mark it down.

Stories have writing conventions too. There is a style and flow that stories should follow, and certain things they should stear away from. A DEM is one of these things. No matter whether you think it is or not, a DEM is technically bad writting. Its pulling a solution out of your ass as you're too lazy to come up with a proper one. Its the opposite of "Rocks fall, everyone dies". Its "Rocks fall, everyone wins".

Whilst the writers may not be "Wrong" in how they've written their story, their story does not follow proper conventions and it can be criticised for this if the story does not work. The story doesn't work. We are criticising this. Are the writers wrong? No. Did they write a good story? Technically, no.