419 réponses à ce sujet

[KENNY4753]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

That's a false definition. A 'true antagonist' is simply someone who is an antagonist to the player, regardless of efficacy or quality.

BioWare has become the antagonist.

no EA

[Ticonderoga117]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Right. And how does that prove ME3 didn't utilize foreshadowing at all?

As it is, you're arguing a fallacy of absolutes.

Are you dense? ME2 foreshadowed this things will happen.
ME3 then dropped it.
That's how ME3 doesn't care for foreshadowing.

People who actually recognized that ME2 and Arrival never claimed Harbinger was anything but, well, a harbinger?

But they set him up to be that. And ME3's codex supports this.

[LucasShark]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Uh, no. It really doesn't.

For the same reason that being the biggest person in the room doesn't make you a leader, or being a leader at one location doesn't imply you'd have authority at another.

This is actually an excellent case for illustrating people projecting what they wanted to hear (Harbinger must be important!), rather than what was actually said (Harbinger's role is one among many).

It specifically says they think he's the leader.

No, it doesn't. It specifically says

"Alliance
intelligence has tentatively identified Harbinger as one of the Reapers
leading the attack on Earth."

'One of' means that there are others. The qualifer at the end of the sentence limits the scope of the authority.

Harby lead the scout attack (the Collectors). Harby was constructing the human Reaper.

Harby lost both of those over the course of ME2.

Harby leads the attack on Earth.

Among other leaders.

Harby leads the Reapers to the Milky Way and the Alpha Relay.

No: Object Rho leads the Reapers to the Milky Way and Alpha Relay.

Harbinger just talks.

Harby is the biggest Reaper, with a unique look.

The ME2 ending implied all the Reapers had a unique look, until they streamlined it for ME3, but this is going to the 'biggest guy in the room' argument.

Harbinger is the leader of the Reapers, and technically, the primary antagonist.

The game never claims such.

Nor does it ever say "shepard is the protagonist" in thise words, nor does it say "This is joker, he can fly ships".

[M0keys]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Uh, no. It really doesn't.

For the same reason that being the biggest person in the room doesn't make you a leader, or being a leader at one location doesn't imply you'd have authority at another.

This is actually an excellent case for illustrating people projecting what they wanted to hear (Harbinger must be important!), rather than what was actually said (Harbinger's role is one among many).

It specifically says they think he's the leader.

No, it doesn't. It specifically says

"Alliance
intelligence has tentatively identified Harbinger as one of the Reapers
leading the attack on Earth."

'One of' means that there are others. The qualifer at the end of the sentence limits the scope of the authority.

Harby lead the scout attack (the Collectors). Harby was constructing the human Reaper.

Harby lost both of those over the course of ME2.

Harby leads the attack on Earth.

Among other leaders.

Harby leads the Reapers to the Milky Way and the Alpha Relay.

No: Object Rho leads the Reapers to the Milky Way and Alpha Relay.

Harbinger just talks.

Harby is the biggest Reaper, with a unique look.

The ME2 ending implied all the Reapers had a unique look, until they streamlined it for ME3, but this is going to the 'biggest guy in the room' argument.

Harbinger is the leader of the Reapers, and technically, the primary antagonist.

The game never claims such.

It sometimes helps for an antagonist to claim he is your driving obstacle, but that doesn't mean he has to. Nurse Ratchet never came up to Jack Nicholson, decked out in Samurai regalia, and screamed "I AM YOUR OPPONENT!" with a pointed finger.

Modifié par M0keys, 19 août 2012 - 09:19 .

[Dean_the_Young]

LucasShark wrote...

Ugh: THEY CHARACTERIZED him to be the leader, they surrounded him with signs reading "this guy is important"

His importance was as a Harbinger and Collectors. The first was obsolete when the role was fulfilled: the second was destroyed.

You projected him to be the leader, without solid grounds.

If his name had any bearing on it, why wasn't Sovreign named "the unpopular fat one with achney we voted to stay behind on the most boring thankless task in history".

Because Saren named Sovereign, and gave his own justification for the name.

Otherwise, Sovereign was referred to as the Vanguard... again, establishing the role. Sovereign's role had far more direct implications over the rest of the Reapers than Harbinger was ever suggested to have.

[Jamie9]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
The game never claims such.

I'm not going to refute each claim you've made as it's clear we both have inferred very different things from the story.

What I am going to say is: If you are correct, if the writers did not intend Harbinger to be the main antagonist - they did a terrible job at conveying it. Because almost everyone I've seen on the BSN thought Harbinger was going to play a large role in ME3, and all my real life friends thought the same.

They set it up. If they didn't want us to have Harbinger back, they should have killed him, or closed his story arc. They did neither. You could argue destroying the Collector Base was the finale, but then he re-appears in Arrival.

[Dean_the_Young]

LucasShark wrote...
Nor does it ever say "shepard is the protagonist" in thise words,

No, dramatic roles tend not to break the fourth wall like that. But we aren't arguing Harbinger's dramatic role: we're arguing his in-universe role, as supported in-universe.

nor does it say "This is joker, he can fly ships".

Joker's role is established pretty early on, by himself and others.

[LucasShark]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

Ugh: THEY CHARACTERIZED him to be the leader, they surrounded him with signs reading "this guy is important"

His importance was as a Harbinger and Collectors. The first was obsolete when the role was fulfilled: the second was destroyed.

You projected him to be the leader, without solid grounds.

If his name had any bearing on it, why wasn't Sovreign named "the unpopular fat one with achney we voted to stay behind on the most boring thankless task in history".

Because Saren named Sovereign, and gave his own justification for the name.

Otherwise, Sovereign was referred to as the Vanguard... again, establishing the role. Sovereign's role had far more direct implications over the rest of the Reapers than Harbinger was ever suggested to have.

It's like talking to a head of cabbage...

[Dean_the_Young]

Jamie9 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
The game never claims such.

I'm not going to refute each claim you've made as it's clear we both have inferred very different things from the story.

What I am going to say is: If you are correct, if the writers did not intend Harbinger to be the main antagonist - they did a terrible job at conveying it. Because almost everyone I've seen on the BSN thought Harbinger was going to play a large role in ME3, and all my real life friends thought the same.

'Almost everyone', in that case, projected more than what was said.

They set it up. If they didn't want us to have Harbinger back, they should have killed him, or closed his story arc. They did neither. You could argue destroying the Collector Base was the finale, but then he re-appears in Arrival.

And what was his role in Arrival...?

[LilLino]

Maybe she's just politely telling you to stop bothering her about every little detail you hate.
Bioware kinda gets a lot of hate and I bet they're annoyed as f**ck right now.

They're still human, you know.

[clarkusdarkus]

And yet people have hopes for leviathan still......if they can discount the main ME2 antaganist and basically make him irrelevant then they'll do anything to not make us play ME1/2 again, it's like they actually want us to forget they existed.

[M0keys]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

LucasShark wrote...
Nor does it ever say "shepard is the protagonist" in thise words,

No, dramatic roles tend not to break the fourth wall like that. But we aren't arguing Harbinger's dramatic role: we're arguing his in-universe role

maybe you choose to, but I've been trying to explain the theory of dramatic antagonism to you and you keep telling me about canon.

[Jamie9]

KENNY4753 wrote...
no EA

There's a difference?

Ray Muzyka, CEO of Bioware and Senior Vice President of EA.

[LucasShark]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

LucasShark wrote...
Nor does it ever say "shepard is the protagonist" in thise words,

No, dramatic roles tend not to break the fourth wall like that. But we aren't arguing Harbinger's dramatic role: we're arguing his in-universe role, as supported in-universe.

nor does it say "This is joker, he can fly ships".

Joker's role is established pretty early on, by himself and others.

And yet you reject framing which was done, in exactly the same way for Harbinger.  DOUBLE STANDARD MUCH!?

[Zjarcal]

7he Island Head wrote...

lol nerd rage

Lol indeed.

[Dean_the_Young]

LucasShark wrote...

It's like talking to a head of cabbage...

I could say kinder things of you, but let's go with these few questions.


Who in the game ever claims Harbinger is the leader of the Reapers?

What leadership role over other Reapers is Harbinger ever demonstrated to have?

[Fingertrip]

If you get so attached to the plot, your real life must be in a great dissoray, and quite frankly, the society would be better off without it.

[LucasShark]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
The game never claims such.

I'm not going to refute each claim you've made as it's clear we both have inferred very different things from the story.

What I am going to say is: If you are correct, if the writers did not intend Harbinger to be the main antagonist - they did a terrible job at conveying it. Because almost everyone I've seen on the BSN thought Harbinger was going to play a large role in ME3, and all my real life friends thought the same.

'Almost everyone', in that case, projected more than what was said.

They set it up. If they didn't want us to have Harbinger back, they should have killed him, or closed his story arc. They did neither. You could argue destroying the Collector Base was the finale, but then he re-appears in Arrival.

And what was his role in Arrival...?

HE is the one you interact with
HE is the one who speaks for the reapers
HE is the one who threatens you, specifically you, to your face

That's pretty bloody direct.

[KENNY4753]

Jamie9 wrote...

KENNY4753 wrote...
no EA

There's a difference?

Ray Muzyka, CEO of Bioware and Senior Vice President of EA.

Point taken

[LucasShark]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

It's like talking to a head of cabbage...

I could say kinder things of you, but let's go with these few questions.


Who in the game ever claims Harbinger is the leader of the Reapers?

What leadership role over other Reapers is Harbinger ever demonstrated to have?

- Leading the attack on earth
- Leading the reaper formation in Arrival
- Speaking on their behalf to you
- The fact that all capital ships control other reapers.

[Jamie9]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
'Almost everyone', in that case, projected more than what was said.

Yes, which demonstrates that BioWare failed to convey what they meant.

Dean_the_Young wrote...
And what was his role in Arrival...?

He's the main antagonist of ME2. Arrival was marketted as the bridge between ME2 and ME3. Harbinger reappears, once again being the face of the Reapers.

If they weren't bringing him back for ME3, they shouldn't have brought him back. Simply by him appearing (and surviving) gives the audience the impression he'll play a role in ME3.

[Dean_the_Young]

LucasShark wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

LucasShark wrote...
Nor does it ever say "shepard is the protagonist" in thise words,

No, dramatic roles tend not to break the fourth wall like that. But we aren't arguing Harbinger's dramatic role: we're arguing his in-universe role, as supported in-universe.

nor does it say "This is joker, he can fly ships".

Joker's role is established pretty early on, by himself and others.

And yet you reject framing which was done, in exactly the same way for Harbinger.  DOUBLE STANDARD MUCH!?

NO, NOT REALLY.

FOR HARBINGER TO BE FRAMED AS THE LEADER OF THE REAPERS, SOMEONE IN THE GAME WOULD HAVE NEEDED TO CLAIM SUCH. NO ONE DOES, NOT EVEN THE CODEX.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
If by 'simple as that' you mean 'my opinion.'

Harbinger works as a good voice for the Reapers in ME2 because Harbinger is the only Reaper with a presence or role in ME2. He is, after all, the Harbinger: a person that announces or signals the approach of another.

Once the other arrives, a Harbinger's role has already been fulfilled.

So true.

[M0keys]

my real guess, though? they couldn't get the VA back for ME3 for some reason, and just decided to leave out Harbinger. but now they have to defend the mishap as if it was some kind of sacred plot decision they made.

[MystEU]

Krimzie wrote...

She's speaking the truth. She's not one of the writers (though I feel like she'd have good ideas if she were) and it's good advice for the player base. She loves the series so she knows as well as we do that things got scrapped. I thought the dark energy thing was going somewhere, too. And I especially thought we'd learn more about Harbinger when he threatens you so directly.

I don't think she's defending anyone by saying that.

Indeed. It also means that fans are trying to search for way too many details to be called mistakes or developer laziness. This is obvious from these boards. Every little thing that people can think of is being brought up and fans are trying to dissect whether there are more plot holes or not.

New thread: WARNING, WE NEVER SEE JOKER GET UP TO USE THE BATHROOM. INDOCTRINATION THEORY EA LIES

I've seen stupider, believe it or not.

So don't get too attached to a plot. Stop trying to analyze every small thing and have healthy discussions about it. That overly, in-depth, detective trying-to-find-more-wrong-to-feel-at-home-among-everyone-raging-about-the-game way of thinking is unhealthy.

Seriously!

So yeah, don't take this remark too literally. There's probably some context here like "why are you guys TRYING to find a problem with every little detail?"

Maybe saying that would be bad press, even if it's true.