327 réponses à ce sujet

[MegaSovereign]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

I pointed out the foreshadowing, which is ALL there if you look at it and use some common sense.  Bioware isn't obligated to and shouldn't HAVE to point out every little thing.

You pointed out things you managed to deduct, that wasn't very convincing, had little in the way of actual in-game evidence, and is no more conrete that what I came up with, less so, actually. 

And while it wasn't the core conflict, it WAS a contributory theme of the game.

Although not in the same form presented by the Catalyst.

The Catalyst presented the theme as a problem. It was never the central theme of the trilogy. The Reapers' motivations don't have to be the central theme....

[Obadiah]

@MegaSovereign Yup.

@LucasShark The ending explanation really didn't need for-shadowing, but I'm glad they put it in. It is a good DLC.

[grey_wind]

MegaSovereign wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

I pointed out the foreshadowing, which is ALL there if you look at it and use some common sense.  Bioware isn't obligated to and shouldn't HAVE to point out every little thing.

You pointed out things you managed to deduct, that wasn't very convincing, had little in the way of actual in-game evidence, and is no more conrete that what I came up with, less so, actually. 

And while it wasn't the core conflict, it WAS a contributory theme of the game.

Although not in the same form presented by the Catalyst.

The Catalyst presented the theme as a problem. It was never the central theme of the trilogy. The Reapers' motivations don't have to be the central theme....

But it's the theme that the entire ending is defined by, and thus everything you've ever done over the trilogy comes down to solving the arbitrarily introduced problem of synthetics and organics.

[RiouHotaru]

The central theme was stopping the Reapers, that the Reapers had a motivation which was a theme that was relevant to all the games isn't a bad thing.

Read the ME1 artbook. The Geth were originally going to be bat-creatures, until the development team noticed the "growing conflict of organics vs synthetics".

As for the Reapers, I'm baffled anyone could come to any conclusion other than "The Reapers are robots." Because that's they are. They're giant machines. There's NOTHING supernatural about Mass Effect with regards to the Reapers. That they share this lovecraftian motiff is a nice aesthetic touch, but they were never the cosmic horrors everyone likes to say they were.

If they're machines then they HAD to be made.

[RiouHotaru]

grey_wind wrote...

But it's the theme that the entire ending is defined by, and thus everything you've ever done over the trilogy comes down to solving the arbitrarily introduced problem of synthetics and organics.

It's not arbitrary though, it was introduced back in ME1.  The Council banned A.I. research even BEFORE the quarians built the geth.  So really, the idea of organics being worried about synthetics was there even in the lore background.

[MegaSovereign]

But it's the theme that the entire ending is defined by, and thus everything you've ever done over the trilogy comes down to solving the arbitrarily introduced problem of synthetics and organics.

No. It's. Not.

It's the Reapers' motivations and this itself could have been anything. For example, If they had gone with the dark energy ending, the dark energy issue wouldn't have been the central theme.

Central themes, by definition, cannot be introduced at the end of a story. That doesn't even make sense.

[grey_wind]

RiouHotaru wrote...

The central theme was stopping the Reapers, that the Reapers had a motivation which was a theme that was relevant to all the games isn't a bad thing.

Read the ME1 artbook. The Geth were originally going to be bat-creatures, until the development team noticed the "growing conflict of organics vs synthetics".

As for the Reapers, I'm baffled anyone could come to any conclusion other than "The Reapers are robots." Because that's they are. They're giant machines. There's NOTHING supernatural about Mass Effect with regards to the Reapers. That they share this lovecraftian motiff is a nice aesthetic touch, but they were never the cosmic horrors everyone likes to say they were.

If they're machines then they HAD to be made.

Stopping the Reapers isn't a theme. It's the protagonist's goal.

And just because the Reapers are robots means nothing. We've been shown that AIs are fully capable of thinking and acting independently, without the need for some overarching creator. The fact that every Reaper always came to the same conclusion that all organic life had to be wiped out was what made them so terrifying, so incomprehensible. It suggested a level of thinking that we could not understand. It did not suggest they were being controlled.

[grey_wind]

MegaSovereign wrote...

But it's the theme that the entire ending is defined by, and thus everything you've ever done over the trilogy comes down to solving the arbitrarily introduced problem of synthetics and organics.

No. It's. Not.

It's the Reapers' motivations and this itself could have been anything. For example, If they had gone with the dark energy ending, the dark energy issue wouldn't have been the central theme.

Central themes, by definition, cannot be introduced at the end of a story. That doesn't even make sense.

And that is why the dark energy ending is also garbage. Central themes cannot be introduced at the end of a story, but the story is supposed to end by reinforcing the central theme. By suddenly making the ending all about organics and synthetics, it forces this stupid (and non-existant) conflict to the front and demands that the entire story was revolving around it when it actually wasn`t.

[The Night Mammoth]

MegaSovereign wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

I pointed out the foreshadowing, which is ALL there if you look at it and use some common sense.  Bioware isn't obligated to and shouldn't HAVE to point out every little thing.

You pointed out things you managed to deduct, that wasn't very convincing, had little in the way of actual in-game evidence, and is no more conrete that what I came up with, less so, actually. 

And while it wasn't the core conflict, it WAS a contributory theme of the game.

Although not in the same form presented by the Catalyst.

The Catalyst presented the theme as a problem. It was never the central theme of the trilogy. The Reapers' motivations don't have to be the central theme....

Certainly not, but it goes beyond just the Reaper's motivation. It's defining the entire universe, the entire story of Mass Effect. This is why you're fighting the Reapers, this is why the story is happening. 

Something that important needs to be a little more concrete, in my opinion.

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 09 septembre 2012 - 02:59 .

[MetioricTest]

Long belated post incoming

Again, control is limited to places where their artifacts are nearby. There is no way they have them all over the galaxy. With the Mass Relays disabled it would be even harder for them to transport more of those artifacts to other systems.

Your worst case scenario is applied to only the Destroy ending. Even then with Reaper corpses everywhere the galaxy can extrapolate their tech and use it against the Leviathans.

This is false. Once affected you don't need to keep the artifacts nearby. And the artifacts have been spread galaxy wide.... By teams of cammandos, who now presumably are also affected.

Meanwhile the relays are damaged. Not destroyed or disabled. Even in destroy.

Too bad the Stargazer scene disproves that.

Nothing about Stargazers denies control from Levvy

Mcfly616 wrote...
Foreshadowing is not needed. The point of the ending was to make the player question themselves and what they believe at the very last moment.

"Why has this become so bad? Why am I still playing it O_o"


Erm... doubt it.

Uhhh, while the Catalyst specifically wasn't foreshadowed, there was ALWAYS a lingering foreshadow of the Reapers being controlled by someone/something else. The fact they were giant ROBOTS should have been a dead giveaway to this.

Before I'll respond to this I want to note that nearly this entire post has gone in a direction of "Do the Reapers need a controller" which is a completely different issue to the lack of Catalyst foreshadowing...

The Reapers are part organic and well beyond us. They're not robots and they were introduced as beyond our understanding. Sovereign pretty much scoffed at the concept of a beginning and a creator.

That has now been reduced to childish lying.

- Machines have to be made by someone, implying that someone came up with the idea/concept/etc of "Reapers", implying a creator (The Catalyst)

Do they? Did humans have to be made by someone?

Could the Reapers simply have been beings who evolved alongside technology into what became the Reapers? The Catalyst himself states that he believes Synthesis is an eventuality of evolution.

Could the Reapers have been here since Time began?

Could the Reapers have created organic life?

Would this have been a better question to never answer? And leave "beyond our comprehension"?

- They're programmed with a very specific directive, which directly implies that someone/something had to program that directive into them. Machines cannot spontaneously program themselves from nothing.

Self-aware, intelligent, partly organic ones can. And their objects are a bit schizophrenic throughout the series. I mean if you accept the Catalyst's explanation for the Reapers, Harbinger's obsession with Shepard's body becomes absolutely bizarre...

And then everyone simply forgets about using the Citadel to control the Relays.

- The Cycle they were following had been repeated countless times, implying an underlying plan or agenda, AGAIN, implying the existence of a creator and/or a controller.

Or a purpose for the repeated action. That doesn't mean a controller or a creator. Do you eat food repeatedly because you're being controlled to or because you need to?

The entire dark energy ending doesn't need a Reaper creator and explains the action.

Neither would a variety of explanations. The concept that the Reapers think it's a good idea doesn't intrinsically mean their has to be a controller.

Doesn't mean there shouldn't be one either. I'm just talking hypothetically here.

That the controller at the end was revealed to be an AI was SUPPOSED to be the twist. We knew (or should have known) that there was someone's hand behind the Reapers, that they were controlled by another machine was a twist, yes. But not a bad one.

No it was a bad one. And twists can and should be foreshadowed. The best ones usually are.

The Catalyst is like the Dog ending of Silent Hill 2 with no intended comedy.

That you missed the foreshadowing isn't Bioware's fault then. The clues were all there. This is like saying that "organics vs. synthetics" wasn't a theme of the franchise when it was very CLEARLY a present theme.

This always bugs me. Yes it was a "theme" in the series. But never the main one. The entire 3rd game revolves around stopping the Reapers. "Organics v.s synthetics" is brought up and ended in terms of narrative at Rannoch. Then brought back for the end of the game.

An analogy:

Biotic discrimination is a theme in the game. It comes up several side-quests, the codex, the novels, conversations, character backgrounds. Now imagine the ending exactly the same, absolutely identical... Except instead of the Catalyst saying "We kill you all to stop you creating Synthetics which then threaten all life." he says "We kill you all to stop your biotics which become so powerful they threaten all life."

I mean in the Lore it's certainly true that biotics improve in terms of power through genetics and time. Ardaky-Yashi or whatever the hell they are called are stated to to more powerful with each sexkill. Mornith, a child for an Asari, was equal in power to a thousand year old veteran master. And this was without implants. Add the powers implants give, add a few more generations, add some more genetic research... They gain enough power to threaten worlds.

And once they do war breaks out and eventually biotics kill everyone, even destroying worlds and life as we know it. Tearing the fabric of reality apart.

This Biotic Singularity would not be anymore of a stretch to say would happen and is true than the Technological Singularity that Catalyst argues. And it also is a theme is Mass Effect.

But the theme was a minor sub-theme and at no point was the main focus or threatened the world.

[RiouHotaru]

grey_wind wrote...

Stopping the Reapers isn't a theme. It's the protagonist's goal.

And just because the Reapers are robots means nothing. We've been shown that AIs are fully capable of thinking and acting independently, without the need for some overarching creator. The fact that every Reaper always came to the same conclusion that all organic life had to be wiped out was what made them so terrifying, so incomprehensible. It suggested a level of thinking that we could not understand. It did not suggest they were being controlled.

Really?  If they're robots, then someone had to create them in the first place.  And given their function, they were made with the very idea of the cycle in mind.  That the creator/controller still exists and is an AI itself is a plot twist, but at no point is there any question a creator did exist at SOME point.

[MetioricTest]

RiouHotaru wrote...
 but at no point is there any question a creator did exist at SOME point.

Erm... Yes there is.

Sovereign.

See above post

[The Night Mammoth]

RiouHotaru wrote...

grey_wind wrote...

Stopping the Reapers isn't a theme. It's the protagonist's goal.

And just because the Reapers are robots means nothing. We've been shown that AIs are fully capable of thinking and acting independently, without the need for some overarching creator. The fact that every Reaper always came to the same conclusion that all organic life had to be wiped out was what made them so terrifying, so incomprehensible. It suggested a level of thinking that we could not understand. It did not suggest they were being controlled.

Really?  If they're robots, then someone had to create them in the first place.

Themselves. They turned themselves into Reapers to better serve their agendas.

They're also not just robots, or did you miss ME1? And 2, with Harbinger, for that matter. 

And 3, with that one on Rannoch. 

but at no point is there any question a creator did exist at SOME point.

Frankly, there's no more reason to believe there was one as opposed to what I suggested above.

[grey_wind]

RiouHotaru wrote...

grey_wind wrote...

Stopping the Reapers isn't a theme. It's the protagonist's goal.

And just because the Reapers are robots means nothing. We've been shown that AIs are fully capable of thinking and acting independently, without the need for some overarching creator. The fact that every Reaper always came to the same conclusion that all organic life had to be wiped out was what made them so terrifying, so incomprehensible. It suggested a level of thinking that we could not understand. It did not suggest they were being controlled.

Really?  If they're robots, then someone had to create them in the first place.  And given their function, they were made with the very idea of the cycle in mind.  That the creator/controller still exists and is an AI itself is a plot twist, but at no point is there any question a creator did exist at SOME point.

Or they could have simply been organics that kept on cybernetically augmenting themselves until they became so fanatic about their perfection that they became the first true Reapers. Nowhere is it implied that they have a creator.
And even if they did, there was no proof that this creator was still in the game and influencing events. If they were really so hell bent on saying the Reapers had a creator who gave them all a function and was STILL around after billions of years, they had a perfect candidate for this role without introducing an arbitrary new character. They just decided to reduce this candidate to a 5 second role where he fires some lasers and then flys away going derpy derp.

[RiouHotaru]

MetioricTest wrote...

Before I'll respond to this I want to note that nearly this entire post has gone in a direction of "Do the Reapers need a controller" which is a completely different issue to the lack of Catalyst foreshadowing...

The Reapers are part organic and well beyond us. They're not robots and they were introduced as beyond our understanding. Sovereign pretty much scoffed at the concept of a beginning and a creator.

That has now been reduced to childish lying.

Sovereign isn't a reliable narrator.  They were introduced as giant, gold-like machines with abilities far beyond anything current galactic technology could muster, but it did NOT change the fact they were machines.  That they scoffed at the idea of a creator doesn't in any way preclude one exists.

Do they? Did humans have to be made by someone?

Could the Reapers simply have been beings who evolved alongside technology into what became the Reapers? The Catalyst himself states that he believes Synthesis is an eventuality of evolution.

Could the Reapers have been here since Time began?

Could the Reapers have created organic life?

Would this have been a better question to never answer? And leave "beyond our comprehension"?

There's a difference, synthetic life is artificial.  By that very definition it means SOMEONE had to make them.  They weren't mystical beings, they were not cosmic creatures out to ruin us.  That they shared the design and aesthetic wasn't meant to be indicative of their nature.  The Catalyst noting Snythesis as an eventuality is him coming to a logical conclusion based on the evidence he gathered to solve a problem his creators built him to solve.

Self-aware, intelligent, partly organic ones can. And their objects are a bit schizophrenic throughout the series. I mean if you accept the Catalyst's explanation for the Reapers, Harbinger's obsession with Shepard's body becomes absolutely bizarre...

And then everyone simply forgets about using the Citadel to control the Relays.

Again, someone had to MAKE them from the start.  Which means they were programmed with the directive of harvesting the galaxy.  A machine cannot exist without a creator, and only the creator can dictate the machine's purpose.

Or a purpose for the repeated action. That doesn't mean a controller or a creator. Do you eat food repeatedly because you're being controlled to or because you need to?

The entire dark energy ending doesn't need a Reaper creator and explains the action.

Neither would a variety of explanations. The concept that the Reapers think it's a good idea doesn't intrinsically mean their has to be a controller.

Doesn't mean there shouldn't be one either. I'm just talking hypothetically here.

For there to be a repetition explicitly implies a reason for it, which means there was an underlying agenda.  In this case, it was the preservation of organic life from their synthetic creations that would otherwise drive them extinct.

No it was a bad one. And twists can and should be foreshadowed. The best ones usually are.

The Catalyst is like the Dog ending of Silent Hill 2 with no intended comedy.

Not a good comparison.  Silent Hill 2 doesn't foreshadow the Dog Ending at all, it's as abrupt and absurd as it's premise.  We're given plenty of foreshadowing that the Reapers are part of something bigger.  That people fixated on the Reapers in micro rather than macro isn't Bioware's fault.

This always bugs me. Yes it was a "theme" in the series. But never the main one. The entire 3rd game revolves around stopping the Reapers. "Organics v.s synthetics" is brought up and ended in terms of narrative at Rannoch. Then brought back for the end of the game.

An analogy:

Biotic discrimination is a theme in the game. It comes up several side-quests, the codex, the novels, conversations, character backgrounds. Now imagine the ending exactly the same, absolutely identical... Except instead of the Catalyst saying "We kill you all to stop you creating Synthetics which then threaten all life." he says "We kill you all to stop your biotics which become so powerful they threaten all life."

I mean in the Lore it's certainly true that biotics improve in terms of power through genetics and time. Ardaky-Yashi or whatever the hell they are called are stated to to more powerful with each sexkill. Mornith, a child for an Asari, was equal in power to a thousand year old veteran master. And this was without implants. Add the powers implants give, add a few more generations, add some more genetic research... They gain enough power to threaten worlds.

And once they do war breaks out and eventually biotics kill everyone, even destroying worlds and life as we know it. Tearing the fabric of reality apart.

This Biotic Singularity would not be anymore of a stretch to say would happen and is true than the Technological Singularity that Catalyst argues. And it also is a theme is Mass Effect.

But the theme was a minor sub-theme and at no point was the main focus or threatened the world.

And the Catalyst's motivations being the problem of organic vs. synthetic did NOT drastically change the theme of Mass Effect.  Nor was the conflict a "minor sub-theme", considering how big the Geth/Quarian thing was over 3 separate games.  To be perfectly honest, Mass Effect had NO centralized themes.  It was a mix of themes.  That the motivations of the Reapers is one of those themes again, isn't a bad thing.

And to answer your earlier question: No, we needed to know their motivation.  Killer robots who wipe out the galaxy for the lulz is probably the worst idea for an antagonist's reasons ever.  But again, we should've gotten Leviathan first, rather than the EC.  If the EC had come second, this entire problem of retroactive foreshadowing wouldn't exist.

[Blueprotoss]

LucasShark wrote...

Is Bioware really going to try and retroactively add foreshadowing for the insanity of the ending?

This will NOT work, it is the writing equivillent of cheating honestly.  Explanations and foreshadowing are what should have been in here in the first place!  This is like releasing an expansion pack to a book which didn't feature any foreshadowing or explanation of events.

I say this because of both the EC and the Leviathan DLCs, the first which made a scitzophrenic ending slightly less awful, and the second which retroactively tried to explain the mess of circular logic the Catalyst spouted.

I don't want this, focussing on the worst aspect of this story will mire everything, all it will do is produce more garbage, see the introduction of psychic space demi-gods which ruin the destroy ending.

Yet this foreshadowing was done since ME1.

[Bill Casey]

Atakuma wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

Leviathan pretty much covered that, there's really nothing left to add.

- Crucible
- How exactly the Reapers ever got started if their creators had an off button the whole time
- All the other logic flaws in this mess

1. I don't see why it would matter.
2. Leviathans didn't create the reapers, the catalyst did.

"Who designed it?"
"You would not know them, and there is not enough time to explain."

Is essentially an [insert DLC here] placeholder...


Also, according to Catalyst, Leviathans created the Reapers, but the Catalyst turned them into brain slurry factories...

"My creators gave them form, I gave them function, in turn they give me purpose"

Modifié par Bill Casey, 09 septembre 2012 - 03:30 .

[MetioricTest]

[quote]RiouHotaru wrote...
Sovereign isn't a reliable narrator.  [/quote]

That's true now.... But only because they chose to go that way. It was never implied in ME1 that Sovereign was lying, petty or childish.

That's something we have to accept now because otherwise he makes no sense.


[quote]
There's a difference, synthetic life is artificial.  By that very definition it means SOMEONE had to make them.  They weren't mystical beings, they were not cosmic creatures out to ruin us.  That they shared the design and aesthetic wasn't meant to be indicative of their nature.  The Catalyst noting Snythesis as an eventuality is him coming to a logical conclusion based on the evidence he gathered to solve a problem his creators built him to solve.[/quote]

Reapers are not just synthetic.  They are synthetic and organic. And no it doesn't mean there is a creator.

Mass Effect actually has examples of organic creatures melding with synthetic parts to varying degrees. There was nothing to suggest the Reapers weren't like this. Or something else entirely, perhaps something eternal and beyond your comprehension? This was until the events of ME3 and The Catalyst/VI.


[quote]Again, someone had to MAKE them from the start.  Which means they were programmed with the directive of harvesting the galaxy.  A machine cannot exist without a creator, and only the creator can dictate the machine's purpose.[/quote]

See above.

[quote]
For there to be a repetition explicitly implies a reason for it, which means there was an underlying agenda.  In this case, it was the preservation of organic life from their synthetic creations that would otherwise drive them extinct.[/quote]

Yes... This is the technological singularity the Catalyst was talking about. What's your point?


[quote]Not a good comparison.  Silent Hill 2 doesn't foreshadow the Dog Ending at all,[/quote]

I'd say it foreshadows it more than ME1 and ME2 and 99% of ME3 foreshadow the Catalyst.

[quote]it's as abrupt and absurd as it's premise.  We're given plenty of foreshadowing that the Reapers are part of something bigger.  That people fixated on the Reapers in micro rather than macro isn't Bioware's fault.[/quote]

Before even saying whether I agree with the notion or not:

"The Reapers are part of something bigger." =/= "The Reapers were created by this guy and the games always said so."

[quote]And the Catalyst's motivations being the problem of organic vs. synthetic did NOT drastically change the theme of Mass Effect. [/quote]

No it didn't. That's the problem. All the games had a running main theme and then the ending had a completely seperate minor theme. "Stop the Reapers" is replaced with "Solve the inevitable conflict between Synthetics and Organics that we will explain to you right now and you have to accept."


[quote]Nor was the conflict a "minor sub-theme", considering how big the Geth/Quarian thing was over 3 separate games.  [/quote]

As was the biotic discrimination.  And a number of themes. Yes it was minor.

[quote]To be perfectly honest, Mass Effect had NO centralized themes.  It was a mix of themes.  That the motivations of the Reapers is one of those themes again, isn't a bad thing.[/quote]

"Stop the Reapers from kill us all" is the central theme of every single game.

[quote]No, we needed to know their motivation.  [/quote]


A lot of fans disagree..

[quote]Killer robots who wipe out the galaxy for the lulz is probably the worst idea for an antagonist's reasons ever.[/quote]

Not a fan of Lovecraft I take it?  Or anything that involves speculation or makes you think?

Ever seen Twin Peaks? Originally the killer was never going to be stated. David Lynch knew who it was (or at least who he wanted it to be) but he never wanted it to be stated. It was up to fans to watch, interpet and figure out.

During the second season they got put under enormous pressure by the network to give up on the mystery and wonder and just solve it blatantly in great detail. So they were forced into having a long 15 minute segment were they figure out who the killer is and then step-by-step explain exactly what ever single piece of surreal imagery meant. Then they go home and have lemonade.

David Lynch hated it. The entire bit is painful, completely out of touch with the rest of the series, kills all the mystery/speculation and drama... And then worst of all there's still half a series of episodes to go. And they're all awkward because the main story and driving force is gone. ..

For the record personally I never really cared for the Reapers and didn't mind whether we knew their motivation or not. But I'd rather they had simply not bothered giving us one than give us one that is terrible, inconsistant and makes little sense.

Modifié par MetioricTest, 09 septembre 2012 - 03:35 .

[LucasShark]

Blueprotoss wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

Is Bioware really going to try and retroactively add foreshadowing for the insanity of the ending?

This will NOT work, it is the writing equivillent of cheating honestly.  Explanations and foreshadowing are what should have been in here in the first place!  This is like releasing an expansion pack to a book which didn't feature any foreshadowing or explanation of events.

I say this because of both the EC and the Leviathan DLCs, the first which made a scitzophrenic ending slightly less awful, and the second which retroactively tried to explain the mess of circular logic the Catalyst spouted.

I don't want this, focussing on the worst aspect of this story will mire everything, all it will do is produce more garbage, see the introduction of psychic space demi-gods which ruin the destroy ending.

Yet this foreshadowing was done since ME1.

NO IT BLOODY WAS NOT!

I don't see any glowing beiber clones in ME1 do you?

[The Night Mammoth]

Blueprotoss wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

Is Bioware really going to try and retroactively add foreshadowing for the insanity of the ending?

This will NOT work, it is the writing equivillent of cheating honestly.  Explanations and foreshadowing are what should have been in here in the first place!  This is like releasing an expansion pack to a book which didn't feature any foreshadowing or explanation of events.

I say this because of both the EC and the Leviathan DLCs, the first which made a scitzophrenic ending slightly less awful, and the second which retroactively tried to explain the mess of circular logic the Catalyst spouted.

I don't want this, focussing on the worst aspect of this story will mire everything, all it will do is produce more garbage, see the introduction of psychic space demi-gods which ruin the destroy ending.

Yet this foreshadowing was done since ME1.

Terribly, if at all. 

[Conniving_Eagle]

Fish Theory.

[Blueprotoss]

LucasShark wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

Yet this foreshadowing was done since ME1.

NO IT BLOODY WAS NOT!

I don't see any glowing beiber clones in ME1 do you?

Reapers having a creator and the whole Reaper threat is based on a Creator vs Creator theme tells us a different story.

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Terribly, if at all. 

It was as clear as TIM being a villian. 

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 09 septembre 2012 - 03:48 .

[LucasShark]

Blueprotoss wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

Yet this foreshadowing was done since ME1.

NO IT BLOODY WAS NOT!

I don't see any glowing beiber clones in ME1 do you?

Reapers having a creator and the whole Reaper threat is based on a Creator vs Creator theme tells us a different story.

Except that is A) a minor detail in ME1, and never even bloody confirmed, in-fact: utterly denounced by Sovreign.

[Epique Phael767]

[quote]Blueprotoss wrote...

[quote]LucasShark wrote...

[quote]Blueprotoss wrote...

Yet this foreshadowing was done since ME1.
[/quote]

NO IT BLOODY WAS NOT!

I don't see any glowing beiber clones in ME1 do you?

[/quote]Reapers having a creator and the whole Reaper threat is based on a Creator vs Creator theme tells us a different story.
[quote]

Saying that the main theme is anything but "victory at all costs" or similar is hindsight bias.

Modifié par Epique Phael767, 09 septembre 2012 - 03:52 .

[Blueprotoss]

LucasShark wrote...

Except that is A) a minor detail in ME1, and never even bloody confirmed, in-fact: utterly denounced by Sovreign.

The Geth, general ban on AI creation form the Council before the Morning War, and the rumor of Leviathan is a good start in ME1.  The Collectors appearing, the Geth are still bad, and the Harbinger dialogue continues is shown in ME2.  The most foreshadowing is shown in ME3 and its hard to them.

Epique Phael767 wrote...

Saying that the main theme is anything but "victory at all costs" or similar is hindsight bias.

You can have multiple themes occuring at the sametime without any problems. 

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 09 septembre 2012 - 03:57 .