419 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

plfranke wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

M0keys wrote...

I don't know why you guys are trying to damage control for bioware here... this really isn't something you should dismiss. you should be interested in the best story possible. bioware made mistakes. that doesn't mean you should let them slide. if anything, you should tell Bioware just how important it is to you because you don't want them to fall on their face.

So why ring up false accusations, then?

what are you talking about?

People accusing Bioware of dropping the Harbinger, leader of the Reapers, subplot. As there was never a subplot in which Harbinger was presented as leader of the Reapers, this is a false accusation.


Accusing Bioware of dropping Harbinger, Voice of the Reapers, is a valid complaint.

[TheCrazyHobo]

Didn't Jessica also say that Harbinger was not important to Mass Effect 3? I mean it's not like the oldest and largest Reaper and the one who seems to be leading them.

[Tipsyfresh]

LucasShark wrote...

"Don't get to attached to the central aspect of a story!"

I feel a great disturbance in the force... as though millions of facepalms all occured at once, followed by silence.

So this.

[-Skorpious-]

And once again Jessica manages to incite the fanbase (regardless if that was her intention) rather than calm them. Why does any Bioware employee other than Patrick even say anything at this point? He is the only one who seems to take the rage out of the community rather than add to it.

Modifié par -Skorpious-, 19 août 2012 - 09:48 .

[Dean_the_Young]

plfranke wrote...

My God Dean can you please stop making every single post like that, it takes up unneccesary space and it's just time consuming I'm considering just starting to skip your posts all together.

Then either make a single argument, or learn to write [q.u.o.t.e] to divide your replies.

[plfranke]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

plfranke wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

M0keys wrote...

I don't know why you guys are trying to damage control for bioware here... this really isn't something you should dismiss. you should be interested in the best story possible. bioware made mistakes. that doesn't mean you should let them slide. if anything, you should tell Bioware just how important it is to you because you don't want them to fall on their face.

So why ring up false accusations, then?

what are you talking about?

People accusing Bioware of dropping the Harbinger, leader of the Reapers, subplot. As there was never a subplot in which Harbinger was presented as leader of the Reapers, this is a false accusation.


Accusing Bioware of dropping Harbinger, Voice of the Reapers, is a valid complaint.

okay if it makes you feel better, and will get you to actually contribute to the conversation instead of just blindly arguing with everyone that's what I'm complaining about

[coles4971]

Bioware's PR is horrendous. They could probably make the best game ever and still say something dumb to alienate people.

[Dean_the_Young]

-Skorpious- wrote...

And once again Jessica manages to incite the fanbase, regardless if that was her intention, rather than calm them. Why does any Bioware employee other than Patrick even say anything at this point? He is the only one who seems to take the rage out of the community rather than add to it.

Because then the 'fanbase' froths at why Bioware empoyees don't say anything or communicate with them, and take it as proof that they are being ignorred.

[Dean_the_Young]

plfranke wrote...

okay if it makes you feel better, and will get you to actually contribute to the conversation instead of just blindly arguing with everyone that's what I'm complaining about

I'd also feel better if you invested in capitalization and punctuation. Too much to hope for?

[Peranor]

Harby was no more the main villain of the game then Dr Evil was the main villain in Austin Powers. Both were just "spokespersons of the evil horde"

[SpamBot2000]

EA too cheap to pay for a slick PR operation?

[Jamie9]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
First support that you had a majority: then support why they had reason to believe a major role was in store.

That's fair to say, but I don't have any statistics. Feel free to ignore my argument on this if you require those.

Dean_the_Young wrote...
I can think of a few things.

For appearnces, Earth 1, possibly Rannoch, and Thessia would have been workable as well: the first if Harbinger had been reported as in-route to try and get Shepard, only for the Normandy to swoop in last moment for the rescue. For Rannoch, at the heroic-high midpoint of the game, if the victorious Geth/Migrant fleet were able to force a retreat. And for Thessia, for Harbinger to come in at the end, rather than that nameless Reaper.

Reaper propoganda could also have been used: news reports on the Citadel, or broadcasting indoctrination device loud-speakers.

One possibility would have been the QEM transmitter: if Harbinger/the Reapers had captured one on Earth, with a direct link to the Normandy. After the story missions, Shepard could have a verbal dual with Harbinger.

Yeah, there's lots of moments Harbinger could have appeared - pretty much anywhere Reapers did. Earth 1 and Thessia particularly seemed good points in the story to add him. These are the moments where Shepard loses a homeworld.

I'd also like to add the dreams though. That would have been a convenient place for Harbinger to taunt Shepard. Obviously, it wouldn't physically be Harbinger, but Shepard using him as the "face/voice" of the Reapers.

Simply, if they didn't want him to appear, they shouldn't have namedropped him in places that suggest a confrontation. The two most obvious being Rannoch Reaper saying "Harbinger speaks of you." and Anderson telling Shepard that Harbinger was coming.

[eoinnx03]

Oh leave her alone, if she has ill feeling to some of the community here is your reason why. This is petty now. Let's all move on.

[M0keys]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

plfranke wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

M0keys wrote...

I don't know why you guys are trying to damage control for bioware here... this really isn't something you should dismiss. you should be interested in the best story possible. bioware made mistakes. that doesn't mean you should let them slide. if anything, you should tell Bioware just how important it is to you because you don't want them to fall on their face.

So why ring up false accusations, then?

what are you talking about?

People accusing Bioware of dropping the Harbinger, leader of the Reapers, subplot. As there was never a subplot in which Harbinger was presented as leader of the Reapers, this is a false accusation.

the main antagonist is never a "sub-plot" unless he has his own little cutaway story which would classify as a plot branch. A good example is Chauvelin's sub plot in The Scarlet Pimpernel as we follow his attempts to seek out the protagonist of the story who has hidden himself from detection.

The reason you can't separate the antagonist from the main plot is because the antagonist creates conflict. Without a challenge, without risks, there is no conflict. Without conflict, there is basically no story, and your protagonist might as well live alone in his apartment, drinking beers and going to the bathroom. because of these vital qualities, antagonists are often the most important character after the protagonist, and are every bit as much a part of the A-Plot... unless your story has no antagonist character. if there is no main antagonist, that usually means the challenge comes through the environment. this can be anything from a big storm to an army of Axis soldiers. this allows the story to explore characters internally, in a more thorough manner, without focusing quite as much on the duality of protagonist vs antagonist.

Mass effect 2 found a nice balance by solidifing the antagonistic presence with a primary villain, but it was still mainly about the characters developing for their roles in Mass Effect 3.

but then if it was about building roles for the good guys, it must have also been expending its energy on developing the roles of the bad guys for ME3, as well. to develop harbinger, and then drop him almost entirely in ME3, is an injustice almost comparable to dropping darth vader in return of the jedi. Not only that, but the Illusive Man was "flanderized" in ME3 to a straightforward "mob boss" character with an army of mooks, negating the at least moderately compelling internal conflict of man vs machine that existed during ME2 for the character.

I'd explain more but i'm starting to get into the neighborhood of an essay now and I guess you probably wouldn't read something that big :

[essarr71]

Except Vader is tied to the story. Harby isn't. For the anology to work, Vader would have lead only a small group of troops against the heroes, had one or two appearances and was silenced. Harby hasn't been presented as the main antagonist across the series.. the Reapers, as a whole, have.

Should the Reapers have had a face? Yes, and certainly one better/more sensical than the one we got. Did it HAVE to be Harby because of established precidence? Absolutely not. You cling to him because he's the only Reaper we know.. not because he was anything special. For all we know every Reaper has an assigned "task".

Further: that there is no conclusive written or shown evidence that harby is definitively the leader.  All it is is conjecture. Not a gross, wild, outrageous one.. but still, just assumption based on lack of knowledge.

Modifié par essarr71, 19 août 2012 - 10:12 .

[M0keys]

essarr71 wrote...

Except Vader is tied to the story. Harby isn't. For the anology to work, Vader would have lead only a small group of troops against the heroes, had one or two appearances and was silenced. Harby hasn't been presented as the main antagonist across the series.. the Reapers, as a whole, have.

which is why I said almost. It's not a 1:1. Vader challenges luke and his allies more than Harbinger when Vader was in empire strikes back, but ME2 had a certain kind of story that didn't need a full-on antagonist like Vader, or The Joker in Dark Knight. It was a story that develolped its characters for the end of the trilogy. all things considered ME3 probably should've had a main antagonist because there is no more room to develop them in the climax, especially if you spend the previous installment doing exactly that. if you start creating new antagonists again, it isn't the climax anymore, and is just an extended 2nd act (or even first!) and not only did Bioware do that at the last possible moment in ME3, they morphed all the antagonism from the whole series into a misguided attempt at tough love.

can you imagine if star wars cut to credits when the millenium falcon left the death star after rescuing leia?

essarr71 wrote...Should the Reapers have had a face? Yes, and certainly one better/more sensical than the one we got. Did it HAVE to be Harby because of established precidence? Absolutely not. You cling to him because he's the only Reaper we know.. not because he was anything special. For all we know every Reaper has an assigned "task".

Further that there is no conclusive written or shown evidence that harby is definitively the leader, all it is is conjecture. Not a gross, wild, outrageous one.. but still, just assumption based on lack of knowledge.

It should tell you something that a lot of people wanted him in that role, though. sometimes a story knows itself better than its writer does.

[GreyLycanTrope]

Don't get too attached to my wallet then.
Honestly Harbinger's seeming obsession with Shepard serves no purpose, he even speaks of you to the other Reapers for no apparent reason since the Reapers show no particular effort in trying stopping Shepard like they did in ME2. No traps, no ambushes, nothing.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 19 août 2012 - 10:32 .

[Baa Baa]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Don't get too attached to my wallet then.

I smell win.

[Malanek]

I guess another reason Harbinger played a reduced role is because so many people on the BSN were complaining about him/it in ME2. Bioware could simply claim they listened to fan feedback.

[M0keys]

Malanek999 wrote...

I guess another reason Harbinger played a reduced role is because so many people on the BSN were complaining about him/it in ME2. Bioware could simply claim they listened to fan feedback.

they couldve repurposed harbinger to be less annoying, but like the exploration elements of ME1 it seems bioware's solution to sub-optimal features is just to remove it.

[eddieoctane]

So what she's telling me is that I shouldn't have purchased ME2 or 3. Good to know that is now BioWare's philosophy.

[Funkdrspot]

gorezeelar wrote...

Remember when video game developers were actually nerds like us, who enjoy wasting time in an incredible intricate world? Now they grow up, and it's all a job to them.

i noe right!? how dare people work for 60 to 100 hrs a week for months on end and still treat it as a 'job'?!?!? Be real man, games are like 10x more complex to program since the 80s and 90s. and its more difficult for them on all sides. graphics gameplay and story

[Dean_the_Young]

M0keys wrote...

the main antagonist is never a "sub-plot" unless he has his own little cutaway story which would classify as a plot branch. A good example is Chauvelin's sub plot in The Scarlet Pimpernel as we follow his attempts to seek out the protagonist of the story who has hidden himself from detection.

And Harbinger was never the main antagonist. He was a Reaper with a role: he stood out, but didn't dominate their functions.

I'd explain more but i'm starting to get into the neighborhood of an essay now and I guess you probably wouldn't read something that big :

Oh, I'd read. I'd just still find your underlying premis flawed. Any number of words on why leaving the primary antagonist out are irrelevant when Harbinger was never presented as the primary antagonist.

If Harbinger had been destroyed at the end of ME2, or Arrival, or the first few minutes of ME3, in what way would that have stopped the rest of the plot? Harbinger's direct involvement was constrained through the Collectors, and the Collectors were already dealt with.

[Drewton]

anorling wrote...


Harby was no more the main villain of the game then Dr Evil was the main villain in Austin Powers. Both were just "spokespersons of the evil horde"

Harbinger never spoke.