141 réponses à ce sujet

[Renmiri1]

The only moral choice is Refusal and that is mass genocide too

[Blacklash93]

Random Jerkface wrote...

The reapers started derping in ME2.

In retrospect that's where the entire series started derping. The lack of build-up to ME3 (in favor of filler) definitely hurt the trilogy and the trends in streamlining were clearly pointing and progressing to some of the shallower systems in ME3; like the simplified dialogue wheel. ME2 did frequently only give you 2 choices in coversations and in-depth investigation options were getting a bit more rare. Looking back I can see how the series ended up like this.

Modifié par Blacklash93, 09 juillet 2012 - 04:30 .

[memorysquid]

Thore2k10 wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

Thore2k10 wrote...

just "stop the reapers" would have been better... no dark energy, no forced synth.-org. conflict, no space kid!

just "stop the reapers", with big battle Harbinger vs. Normandy, crucible weakening the reapers so you can see your war assets and crew members from all three games in action... you know suicide mission deluxe so to say

It wouldn't have been Mass Effect then.  Read about Drew Karpyshyn's ideas for the ending.  The plan was always for the player to face incredibly tough moral decisions.

maybe, but what we got was a choice between 3 endings which are all bad... theres no tough moral choice there. choose between genocide, becoming a dictator or forcing a "DNA change" on every being... (sry, dont know how to write that more clear in english)

not one of these makes you feel like youve won that game or that you needed to make a tough moral choice...

I think the EC clarifies it.  All three are an indication of "winning" only refusal is losing per se.  It is just what flavor of win do you prefer?  Shepard lives but there's a ton of collateral damage, Shepard dies but the galaxy gets puppies and rainbows or a compromise of the two?

[Obadiah]

DeathWingKingUltimate wrote...

You established reapers as a cruel, cunning, destructive most feared threat the galaxy has ever known through ME1 and ME2 and then changed them to a simple controlled robots who can't even make a logic decision about war and battle. Sovereign was a conspirator who spend a millenia looking and gathering allies to assault the citadel. Harbinger was a sick and cunning reaper leader and scientist who again worked in shadows to build a Human Reaper to whatever goal he had in mind that absolutly doesn't matter anymore that both ME1 and ME2 are now pointless as ever.    

This is quite true. Mass Effect 3 would have been far more interesting if Shepard had uncovered confoundingly complicated Reaper plot after plot hidden within the Council species, and perhaps a mid-game confrontation with a Reaper controlled Saren/Illusive Man character (instead of *ugh!* Kai Leng).

[RiouHotaru]

The Reapers only seem monstrous because we can't wrap our brains around what they're doing and in our moral and logical principles what they want makes no sense to us.

There's a reason TVTropes labels them as having "Blue And Orange Morality".

[The Twilight God]

Sarevok Synder wrote...

N-Noooo

Perfect 10/10

[The Twilight God]

memorysquid wrote...

Thore2k10 wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

Thore2k10 wrote...

just "stop the reapers" would have been better... no dark energy, no forced synth.-org. conflict, no space kid!

just "stop the reapers", with big battle Harbinger vs. Normandy, crucible weakening the reapers so you can see your war assets and crew members from all three games in action... you know suicide mission deluxe so to say

It wouldn't have been Mass Effect then.  Read about Drew Karpyshyn's ideas for the ending.  The plan was always for the player to face incredibly tough moral decisions.

maybe, but what we got was a choice between 3 endings which are all bad... theres no tough moral choice there. choose between genocide, becoming a dictator or forcing a "DNA change" on every being... (sry, dont know how to write that more clear in english)

not one of these makes you feel like youve won that game or that you needed to make a tough moral choice...

I think the EC clarifies it.  All three are an indication of "winning" only refusal is losing per se.  It is just what flavor of win do you prefer?  Shepard lives but there's a ton of collateral damage, Shepard dies but the galaxy gets puppies and rainbows or a compromise of the two?

No, the reapers "win". They get exactly what they want in Synthesis. They get a not insane approach to their current mandate in Control. In Destroy, it is similar because their will is done (i.e. no organics/synthetics coexistence). Either way Shepard is facilitating their will in one way or another. We aren't allowed to walk away with a sense that we beat them outright and will prove them wrong.

Refusal is just a F you complainers troll ending. It's an insult to fans. It's completely nonsensical and invalid. The only rational outcome for refuse would for Shepard to watch the fleets get decimated and upon seeing that conventional victory actually was impossible, then pick destroy.

Modifié par The Twilight God, 09 juillet 2012 - 05:19 .

[Roamingmachine]

Come to think of it, anyone know what the point of ME2 was? Looking back, the plotline of the human reaper (a terrible threat to be certain when there are a BAJILLION of his mates coming for a visit allready) and the collectors (a single cruiser worth firepower) could have been handled as a side mission in ME3.

[MetioricTest]

Thore2k10 wrote...

Sarevok Synder wrote...

N-Noooo

BWAAHAHAA, how come i missed this one til now!

that is brilliant!

A classic

[darkchief10]

my two cents
They should have let drew kaparshyn finish the story, as bad as dark energy sounds he started this, he should have been allowed to finish, losing drew might be the biggest hit bioware has taken

[dbt-kenny]

DeathWingKingUltimate wrote...

You established reapers as a cruel, cunning, destructive most feared threat the galaxy has ever known through ME1 and ME2 and then changed them to a simple controlled robots who can't even make a logic decision about war and battle. Sovereign was a conspirator who spend a millenia looking and gathering allies to assault the citadel. Harbinger was a sick and cunning reaper leader and scientist who again worked in shadows to build a Human Reaper to whatever goal he had in mind that absolutly doesn't matter anymore that both ME1 and ME2 are now pointless as ever.    

You make a very good point, but your are forgetting on thing. The reapers have to be women. Come on you ells could change so much so fast. 
 
It just another plot hole in this swiss cheese game.

Modifié par dbt-kenny, 09 juillet 2012 - 05:34 .

[memorysquid]

The Twilight God wrote...

No, the reapers "win". They get exactly what they want in Synthesis. They get a not insane approach to their current mandate in Control. In Destroy, it is similar because their will is done (i.e. no organics/synthetics coexistence). Either way Shepard is facilitating their will in one way or another. We aren't allowed to walk away with a sense that we beat them outright and will prove them wrong.

Refusal is just a F you complainers troll ending. It's an insult to fans. It's completely nonsensical and invalid. The only rational outcome for refuse would for Shepard to watch the fleets get decimated and upon seeing that conventional victory actually was impossible, then pick destroy.

What the Reapers do or don't want is just irrelevant.  Their will isn't to be destroyed, the Catalyst [and the writers] obviously think synthesis is the optimal outcome.  Shepard has to die for that ending though.  It is set up as a trade off between Shep's continued existence and how well the galaxy does.

[memorysquid]

darkchief10 wrote...

my two cents
They should have let drew kaparshyn finish the story, as bad as dark energy sounds he started this, he should have been allowed to finish, losing drew might be the biggest hit bioware has taken

Who knows what happened there?

I agree though.  It would have made the Reapers make a lot more sense as a super-powerful race that still wasn't just inexplicably evil.  The easiest motive for them could simply have been something like "who the hell knows how they got created, but now they propagate by eating everyone" but that wouldn't have made killing them much of a dilemma.

[DeathWingKingUltimate]

All I 'm saying that Mass Effect deserved more than this, deserved better writers....

Modifié par DeathWingKingUltimate, 09 juillet 2012 - 06:01 .

[The Twilight God]

Roamingmachine wrote...

Come to think of it, anyone know what the point of ME2 was? Looking back, the plotline of the human reaper (a terrible threat to be certain when there are a BAJILLION of his mates coming for a visit allready) and the collectors (a single cruiser worth firepower) could have been handled as a side mission in ME3.

ME2 is just a bridge to ME3.

Sets up the Quarian/Geth war
Sets up the genophage cure and turian/krogan alliance.
Officially introduces Cerberus and TIM especially. They were just a name in ME1.

[Vox Draco]

Most stories that feature a kid all acting and sounding like an adult suck, and making such a kid the "king" of the dreaded Reapers is a mistake of epic proportions...

Before ME3 I truly feared and hated the concept of the Reapers, liquifying entire races to construct their new ships, and this being the only reason behind their actions...but after ME3? They have become so ridiculous it is merely laughable...very sad...

Specualtion should have had remained on the origin and true purpose of the Reapers after Shepard destroyed them, and not speculation about the purpose of Starchild and the RGB-choices etc...so wrong, it hurts to think about it

[The Twilight God]

memorysquid wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

No, the reapers "win". They get exactly what they want in Synthesis. They get a not insane approach to their current mandate in Control. In Destroy, it is similar because their will is done (i.e. no organics/synthetics coexistence). Either way Shepard is facilitating their will in one way or another. We aren't allowed to walk away with a sense that we beat them outright and will prove them wrong.

Refusal is just a F you complainers troll ending. It's an insult to fans. It's completely nonsensical and invalid. The only rational outcome for refuse would for Shepard to watch the fleets get decimated and upon seeing that conventional victory actually was impossible, then pick destroy.

What the Reapers do or don't want is just irrelevant.  Their will isn't to be destroyed, the Catalyst [and the writers] obviously think synthesis is the optimal outcome.  Shepard has to die for that ending though.  It is set up as a trade off between Shep's continued existence and how well the galaxy does.

Thematically, as a piece of literary writting, it DOES matter.  It flies in the face of everything you fought for, the very themes/ideals the story promoted and destroying the very things that prove the Catalyst wrong. Bad wrtitting for the sake of arbitrary "sacrifice". Arbitrary "sacrifice" for the sake of sacrifice. If they though the synthesis was so great they wouldn't need to do this. The other ending are worst from a story prespective as shepard has no reason to believe the Reapers when you tell him killing himself will somehow stop the reapers.  Destroy should be the only option unless the other two came to be known throughout the Crucible construction process to be an option and the story subtlely argues the pros and cons of them before you reach the end.

As opposed to:

Control-
Reaper: Hey, Shep. Run over there and grab hold of those live electical wires and you can take over us all. Trust me, I'm the Reaper Overlord. I have no reason whatsoever to deceive you, right?

Shepard: Uh.. yeah. This is pretty out of the blue, but.. ummm, OK. *commits suicide*

Reaper: Wow! Can't believe that actually worked! LOL @ Shepard



Synthesis-
Reaper: Hey, Shep. Go jump into the death ray... er, um, I mean "Harmony of Life" beam. You can trust me, right?  I'm the Reaper Overlord. I have no reason whatsoever to deceive you.

Shepard: Uh.. sure.  I don't have any opinion on this whatsoever. OK then... *commits suicide*

Reaper: Ha! What a sucker! I should have told him putting that carnifex in his mouth and pulling the trigger would defeat us!!!


 

Modifié par The Twilight God, 09 juillet 2012 - 06:21 .

[SpamBot2000]

memorysquid wrote...


It doesn't kill the bad guys from being interesting more than being bad guys.  The Reapers aren't bad they're controlled and controlled by a shackled AI that is trying its flawed best to prevent total apocalypse.  The theme is that wars are often started over misunderstanding and miscommunication.  Which really isn't a bad theme.  It's nice when villians are "the other" and can be safely destroyed without thinking about their motives but not very realistic.

Oh no, did you just defend the ending as "realistic"?

[Sarevok Synder]

Krunjar wrote...



Except all the reaper would have to do to win that argument is to anwer ... Yes. You know I could make a video where I make random quotes from mass effect seem to back up my argument. It's just I have better things to do.

No, because we're not supposed to be capable understanding, remember? If it answered yes, then it will be confirming that we do understand, invalidating everything every Reaper we've ever spoken to in the MEU has said. They all said it was beyond our comprehension.

[Pkxm]

Roamingmachine wrote...

Come to think of it, anyone know what the point of ME2 was? Looking back, the plotline of the human reaper (a terrible threat to be certain when there are a BAJILLION of his mates coming for a visit allready) and the collectors (a single cruiser worth firepower) could have been handled as a side mission in ME3.

"The Reapers' goal was to find a way to stop the spread of Dark Energy which would eventually consume everything. That's why there was so much foreshadowing about Dark Energy in ME," Karpyshyn wrote.
"The Reapers as a whole were 'nations' of people who had fused together in the most horrific way possible to help find a way to stop the spread of the Dark Energy. The real reason for the Human Reaper was supposed to be the Reapers saving throw because they had run out of time. Humanity in Mass Effect is supposedly unique because of its genetic diversity and represented the universe's best chance at stopping Dark Energy's spread.
"The original final choice was going to be 'Kill the Reapers and put your faith in the races of the galaxy in finding another way to stop the spread with what little time is left' or 'Sacrifice humanity, allowing them to be horrifically processed in hopes that the end result will justify the means.'


this was the main point of me2. and is why they targeted humanity in me2. the plot got dropped.

www.oxm.co.uk/39736/revealed-the-mass-effect-3-ending-bioware-canned-before-release/

Modifié par Jsxdf, 09 juillet 2012 - 06:41 .

[gmboy902]

Pretty much, OP. The best part about the Reapers was that they had, needed, and shouldn't have had an acknowledgeable motive for coming.

[garrusfan1]

wait don't question bioware they are your masters LOL or so some say

[garrusfan1]

gmboy902 wrote...

Pretty much, OP. The best part about the Reapers was that they had, needed, and shouldn't have had an acknowledgeable motive for coming.

I made a thread that asked did you want to know the reapers motives or origns all but 2 people (like 100 people posted in it) wanted it to remain a mystery

[AlexMBrennan]

Modifié par AlexMBrennan, 09 juillet 2012 - 06:56 .

[Zero132132]

garrusfan1 wrote...

gmboy902 wrote...

Pretty much, OP. The best part about the Reapers was that they had, needed, and shouldn't have had an acknowledgeable motive for coming.

I made a thread that asked did you want to know the reapers motives or origns all but 2 people (like 100 people posted in it) wanted it to remain a mystery

Did you make that BEFORE or AFTER ME3 came out?