292 réponses à ce sujet

[Conniving_Eagle]

estebanus wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

estebanus wrote...

But the reapers are manipulating him. He is indoctrinated. The reapers never achieved synthesis themselves, they try and prevent organics from achieving it.

The latter a complete assumption. The Reapers desire synthesis, and have tried it before.
Since this cycle is apparently "ready" now (for reasons unknown), nothing says the Reapers weren't being sincere with Saren indoctrination or no.

 

Well, if they wanted to achieve synthesis, why prevent them from achieving it by killing them? Why not help them achieve it? 

I still find it funny how Starchild at first says that synthesis can't be forced, but then proceeds to try to get Shepard to force it on the galaxy, which pretty much should prove that the current cycle isn't ready yet.

They process them down into genetic coleslaw and use it to create new Reapers. But with Synthesis magic, we don't have to kill everyone! HOORAY!

Modifié par Conniving_Eagle, 15 juillet 2012 - 07:58 .

[LaughingDragon]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

I take the writer's intent as canon, and it's clear their intent here was to kill Shepard off.

SO BE IT!

Agreed. It's crystal clear the intent was to kill Shepard off. Such a disappointing end to an awesome character. 

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Pausanias wrote...

The theme of organics vs. synthetics has been the dominant theme of the series since the very beginning.

No it hasn't.

 

Organics vs synthetics was never a theme in Mass Effect until the last 10 minutes of ME3. I hear cocaine is a hell of a drug.

Cthulhu42 wrote...

It was a Topic in the universe, but the theme is the combination of the deeper meaning of all the topics.

So, the theme was more "diversity is good, together we shall overcome anything"

 

It was definitely not ever a topic. Mass Effect was the story about Shepard and his journey to stop the reapers...until the last minutes of ME3 when the entire story was thrown out the window for some whack green fairy absinthe inspired crackpipe BS.

Modifié par LaughingDragon, 15 juillet 2012 - 08:02 .

[Jadebaby]

Reptilian Rob wrote...

Pausanias wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Except the narrative sidelines the Reapers as the main conflict at the last minute, and makes it about organics vs. synthetics. Suddenly the Reapers aren't the problem! It's this other thing.
By your own definition it's bad writing because it doesn't resolve the conflict, it creates a *new* conflict, resolves that, and the Reapers either die or stick around without killing things as a result.

I used to think this way, Angry One, until someone suggested I view the reapers as raving lunatics similar to the illusive man, all under the influence of the ur-indoctrinator, the Catalyst. Then the whole thing makes sense.

The theme of organics vs. synthetics has been the dominant theme of the series since the very beginning. The other dominant theme has been control/indoctrination. The two are merged into the catalyst.

I agree with you on the last paragraph, for sure. 

ME3 was not poorly written as a whole, just the last few minutes and even then it wasn't terrible. Those of you who are claiming such need to read more literature. 

Does twilight count?

[sporeian]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Pausanias wrote...

The theme of organics vs. synthetics has been the dominant theme of the series since the very beginning.

No it hasn't.

It was a Topic in the universe, but the theme is the combination of the deeper meaning of all the topics.

So, the theme was more "diversity is good, together we shall overcome anything"

[estebanus]

The Angry One wrote...

estebanus wrote...

Well, if they wanted to achieve synthesis, why prevent them from achieving it by killing them? Why not help them achieve it?

Because the Catalyst is the antithesis of logic.

I still find it funny how Starchild at first says that synthesis can't be forced, but then proceeds to try to get Shepard to force it on the galaxy, which pretty much should prove that the current cycle isn't ready yet.

Well, see above. None of it's actions and words make any sense.

 

You're right. There is no valid explanation for this, which means that synthesis as an option isn't viable because of hypocrisy and jumping to conclusions.

[Jadebaby]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Pausanias wrote...

The theme of organics vs. synthetics has been the dominant theme of the series since the very beginning.

No it hasn't.

The only time we are presented with such in ME1 is a little insignificant side quest against a rogue AI.

Unless, as someone has stated before, maybe this was Walters trying to sabotage the series from day one.

[Reptilian Rob]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Pausanias wrote...

The theme of organics vs. synthetics has been the dominant theme of the series since the very beginning.

No it hasn't.

In ME1 it certainly was, in fact Saren himself states as much during the confrontation on Virmire. 

ME2 was more or less the calm before the storm with a focus on bulding assets and alliances for the war to come, and stopping a small threat from becoming a large one. 

[Conniving_Eagle]

sporeian wrote...

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Pausanias wrote...

The theme of organics vs. synthetics has been the dominant theme of the series since the very beginning.

No it hasn't.

It was a Topic in the universe, but the theme is the combination of the deeper meaning of all the topics.

So, the theme was more "diversity is good, together we shall overcome anything"

Nu-uh dude. It was totally about Organics vs. Synthetics and also just how much you are willing to sacrafice to acheive something.

[Conniving_Eagle]

Reptilian Rob wrote...

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Pausanias wrote...

The theme of organics vs. synthetics has been the dominant theme of the series since the very beginning.

No it hasn't.

In ME1 it certainly was, in fact Saren himself states as much during the confrontation on Virmire. 

ME2 was more or less the calm before the storm with a focus on bulding assets and alliances for the war to come, and stopping a small threat from becoming a large one. 

But the Reapers aren't synthetics...

[Reptilian Rob]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Reptilian Rob wrote...

Pausanias wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Except the narrative sidelines the Reapers as the main conflict at the last minute, and makes it about organics vs. synthetics. Suddenly the Reapers aren't the problem! It's this other thing.
By your own definition it's bad writing because it doesn't resolve the conflict, it creates a *new* conflict, resolves that, and the Reapers either die or stick around without killing things as a result.

I used to think this way, Angry One, until someone suggested I view the reapers as raving lunatics similar to the illusive man, all under the influence of the ur-indoctrinator, the Catalyst. Then the whole thing makes sense.

The theme of organics vs. synthetics has been the dominant theme of the series since the very beginning. The other dominant theme has been control/indoctrination. The two are merged into the catalyst.

I agree with you on the last paragraph, for sure. 

ME3 was not poorly written as a whole, just the last few minutes and even then it wasn't terrible. Those of you who are claiming such need to read more literature. 

Does twilight count?

If you are classifying it as a romance series, yes, yes it does. 

[estebanus]

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

estebanus wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

estebanus wrote...

But the reapers are manipulating him. He is indoctrinated. The reapers never achieved synthesis themselves, they try and prevent organics from achieving it.

The latter a complete assumption. The Reapers desire synthesis, and have tried it before.
Since this cycle is apparently "ready" now (for reasons unknown), nothing says the Reapers weren't being sincere with Saren indoctrination or no.

 

Well, if they wanted to achieve synthesis, why prevent them from achieving it by killing them? Why not help them achieve it? 

I still find it funny how Starchild at first says that synthesis can't be forced, but then proceeds to try to get Shepard to force it on the galaxy, which pretty much should prove that the current cycle isn't ready yet.

They process them down into genetic coleslaw and use it to create new Reapers. But with Synthesis magic, we don't have to kill everyone! HOORAY!

I know of another way they can't kill us: If they're laying dead on the ground.

[s17tabris]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

I take the writer's intent as canon, and it's clear their intent here was to kill Shepard off.

That's what I've always thought.  As if making her stupidly walk into the explosion wasn't clue enough.  The breath scene felt like it was just tacked on and made no sense.

[Reptilian Rob]

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

Reptilian Rob wrote...

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Pausanias wrote...

The theme of organics vs. synthetics has been the dominant theme of the series since the very beginning.

No it hasn't.

In ME1 it certainly was, in fact Saren himself states as much during the confrontation on Virmire. 

ME2 was more or less the calm before the storm with a focus on bulding assets and alliances for the war to come, and stopping a small threat from becoming a large one. 

But the Reapers aren't synthetics...

No they are a melding of organic and synthetic parts, they are synthesis in a nut shell (again, why it's a bad option.)

But the theme of them being part organic and part synthetic is the means to solve said problem. Too bad they had to trash that concept for the Starkid. 

[Bfler]

So if Shepard is dead, what is the meaning of the memorial scene in destroy, where your LI holds the plate and smiles?

[The Angry One]

arr0whead wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

I take the writer's intent as canon, and it's clear their intent here was to kill Shepard off.

That's what I've always thought.  As if making her stupidly walk into the explosion wasn't clue enough.  The breath scene felt like it was just tacked on and made no sense.

I hate and love that explosion scene.

I hate it because it's stupid, obviously.
I love it because it inadvertantly represents how forced Shepard's sacrifice really is. They couldn't think of a "natural" way to kill off Shepard. So they have her essentially commit suicide for no reason.
It's almost artistic in it's representation of writing failure.

[LaughingDragon]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Pausanias wrote...

The theme of organics vs. synthetics has been the dominant theme of the series since the very beginning.

No it hasn't.

The only time we are presented with such in ME1 is a little insignificant side quest against a rogue AI.

Unless, as someone has stated before, maybe this was Walters trying to sabotage the series from day one.

Walters comes in at the third game, and wants to make the series his own and tosses out everything established by the previous writer is what it looks like to me. He's like "forget everything that other guy did, this game is mine now"

Bfler wrote...

So if Shepard is dead, what is the meaning of the memorial scene in destroy, where your LI holds the plate and smiles?

 

Everything that made sense and had meaning in ME was thrown out the window in ME3. You can't make sense out of nonsense.

Modifié par LaughingDragon, 15 juillet 2012 - 08:07 .

[The Angry One]

Bfler wrote...

So if Shepard is dead, what is the meaning of the memorial scene in destroy, where your LI holds the plate and smiles?

Speculations!111!1one

[Reptilian Rob]

Bfler wrote...

So if Shepard is dead, what is the meaning of the memorial scene in destroy, where your LI holds the plate and smiles?

Helper was trolling everyone, he had a smirk on his face when he said it. 

[The Angry One]

LaughingDragon wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Pausanias wrote...

The theme of organics vs. synthetics has been the dominant theme of the series since the very beginning.

No it hasn't.

The only time we are presented with such in ME1 is a little insignificant side quest against a rogue AI.

Unless, as someone has stated before, maybe this was Walters trying to sabotage the series from day one.

Walters comes in at the third game, and wants to make the series his own and tosses out everything established by the previous writer is what it looks like to me.

This.

[devSin]

Bfler wrote...

So if Shepard is dead, what is the meaning of the memorial scene in destroy, where your LI holds the plate and smiles?

False hope.

It makes you feel better, even though it doesn't mean anything.

[Maka720]

I was happy with the ending, partly because Shepard died. The breathing scene kind of pissed me off, like they kinda took away my happiness with the ending, but I guess if people can "Hope" that Shepard survived now, I can hope that a big chunk of debris falls on him and finishes him off.

[Leonia]

Reptilian Rob wrote...

Bfler wrote...

So if Shepard is dead, what is the meaning of the memorial scene in destroy, where your LI holds the plate and smiles?

Helper was trolling everyone, he had a smirk on his face when he said it. 

Possibly, fans have read a lot more into that scene than they ought to. It might have been intentional to leave a bit of hope in there but the idea of "Shepard's LI doesn't believe he/she is dead, therefore he/she isn't dead!" is a rather large jump of logic. It's supposed to soften the blow of losing a character we've played as for three games and little more. If indeed the devs had gone with "the power of love brings Shepard back to life" that would have been incredibly cheesy and nonsensical, especially when not every Shepard even has a LI in that scene.

Modifié par leonia42, 15 juillet 2012 - 08:10 .

[The Angry One]

leonia42 wrote...

Reptilian Rob wrote...

Bfler wrote...

So if Shepard is dead, what is the meaning of the memorial scene in destroy, where your LI holds the plate and smiles?

Helper was trolling everyone, he had a smirk on his face when he said it. 

Possibly, fans have read a lot more into that scene than they ought to. It might have been intentional to leave a bit of hope in there but the idea of "Shepard's LI doesn't believe he/she is dead, therefore he/she isn't dead!" is a rather large jump of logic. It's supposed to soften the blow of losing a character we've played as for three games and little more. If indeed the devs had gone with "the power of love brings Shepard back to life" that would have been incredibly cheesy and nonsensical, especially when not every Shepard even has a LI in that scene.

It's not a leap in logic at all if you factor in the other endings.
In control/synthesis, they don't hesitate so much and put up the plaque. In destroy, they don't. The meaning should be clear.

[lex0r11]

The Angry One wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

Reptilian Rob wrote...

Bfler wrote...

So if Shepard is dead, what is the meaning of the memorial scene in destroy, where your LI holds the plate and smiles?

Helper was trolling everyone, he had a smirk on his face when he said it. 

Possibly, fans have read a lot more into that scene than they ought to. It might have been intentional to leave a bit of hope in there but the idea of "Shepard's LI doesn't believe he/she is dead, therefore he/she isn't dead!" is a rather large jump of logic. It's supposed to soften the blow of losing a character we've played as for three games and little more. If indeed the devs had gone with "the power of love brings Shepard back to life" that would have been incredibly cheesy and nonsensical, especially when not every Shepard even has a LI in that scene.

It's not a leap in logic at all if you factor in the other endings.
In control/synthesis, they don't hesitate so much and put up the plaque. In destroy, they don't. The meaning should be clear.

^
This.