91 réponses à ce sujet

[Applepie_Svk]

Dark Energy plot would be interesting, but mystery is still better than YA DAWG I HEARD...

[eddieoctane]

Armass81 wrote...


Theyre far from Gods if you can destroy them...

Um...nope. In fact, lots of cultures have myths about gods dying. The Norse readily come to mind, but the concept springs up the world over. So unless you want to argue that Lovecraft knows more about culture than a couple of millenia and a few million noresemen, that statement is invalid.

[M Hedonist]

ME2 already gave us enough explanation. Reapers harvest civilizations to create new Reapers - to preserve their species. Why couldn't they just leave it at that?

[plfranke]

If you're going to play up the Reaper's motivations with "It is not a thing you can comprehend" you have to actually make it something we can not comprehend. When we find out their motivations are in fact not only something we can comprehend, but something that has been done to death in sci fi, people don't like it. Bottom line is this, people enjoyed seeing a villain that was actually above and beyond the protagonist. The Reapers lost that in more ways than one in me3, not just the synthetics vs organics nonsense. The Reaper on Tutchanka being taken down by a worm, Reaper on Rannoch not able to hit a single human. Basically the Reapers were nerfed, and while I agree that certain demands by people on the BSN like Thane living are somewhat unreasonable, they're not wrong that no reason would have been better than what we got. If a motivation was going to be given, it would have had to of been something never seen before by the audience. That way, the Reapers don't lose all their credibility from the prior "It is not a thing you can comprehend" build up.

[Yate]

Sauruz wrote...

ME2 already gave us enough explanation. Reapers harvest civilizations to create new Reapers - to preserve their species. Why couldn't they just leave it at that?

People complained about that as well.

Now everyone likes ME2's ending.

And so it goes...

[Nightwriter]

People want them to remain a mystery because the truth turned out to be horrifyingly disappointing.

Or maybe that's just me. Yeah, probably just me.

[Yate]

plfranke wrote...

If you're going to play up the Reaper's motivations with "It is not a thing you can comprehend" you have to actually make it something we can not comprehend. When we find out their motivations are in fact not only something we can comprehend, but something that has been done to death in sci fi, people don't like it. Bottom line is this, people enjoyed seeing a villain that was actually above and beyond the protagonist. The Reapers lost that in more ways than one in me3, not just the synthetics vs organics nonsense. The Reaper on Tutchanka being taken down by a worm, Reaper on Rannoch not able to hit a single human. Basically the Reapers were nerfed, and while I agree that certain demands by people on the BSN like Thane living are somewhat unreasonable, they're not wrong that no reason would have been better than what we got. If a motivation was going to be given, it would have had to of been something never seen before by the audience. That way, the Reapers don't lose all their credibility from the prior "It is not a thing you can comprehend" build up.

it's been made pretty clear Sovereign isn't telling the whole truth in ME1

[plfranke]

Yate wrote...

Sauruz wrote...

ME2 already gave us enough explanation. Reapers harvest civilizations to create new Reapers - to preserve their species. Why couldn't they just leave it at that?

People complained about that as well.

Now everyone likes ME2's ending.

And so it goes...

Not everyone's complaining should be heard though. If someone says "I don't like this because it wasn't good" then they haven't given good enough reasons to call it in to discussion. However, lets look at the mass effect 3 story. We're on Rannoch about to conclude the Geth vs the Quarians arc, an end to the story that's been told from the beginning of the game. The reveal is then made that Reapers' motivations are to stop the conflict between organics and synthetics. We then proceed to resolve that conflict. Yet, the Reapers are still Reaping. That is not good storytelling in any way.

[plfranke]

Yate wrote...

plfranke wrote...

If you're going to play up the Reaper's motivations with "It is not a thing you can comprehend" you have to actually make it something we can not comprehend. When we find out their motivations are in fact not only something we can comprehend, but something that has been done to death in sci fi, people don't like it. Bottom line is this, people enjoyed seeing a villain that was actually above and beyond the protagonist. The Reapers lost that in more ways than one in me3, not just the synthetics vs organics nonsense. The Reaper on Tutchanka being taken down by a worm, Reaper on Rannoch not able to hit a single human. Basically the Reapers were nerfed, and while I agree that certain demands by people on the BSN like Thane living are somewhat unreasonable, they're not wrong that no reason would have been better than what we got. If a motivation was going to be given, it would have had to of been something never seen before by the audience. That way, the Reapers don't lose all their credibility from the prior "It is not a thing you can comprehend" build up.

it's been made pretty clear Sovereign isn't telling the whole truth in ME1

The Reaper on Rannoch himself, the one who actually reveals the Reaper's motivations tells you verbatim, "It is not a thing you can comprehend"

[RadicalDisconnect]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

I'm wondering why some think that it's a good idea to not give the Reapers an underlying motivation. Wouldn't that simply turn them into a plot device

You fail at reading comprehension: There is a difference between not giving the Reapers a motivation (your quote), and not revealing it to the player (your thread title).

Regardless, the answer is obvious: If you can only come up with retarded explanations, it's better to leave it unanswered than to give a retarded answer.

If the motivation is a mystery to the players, then what is the motivation then? Up to the writer's discretion?

[Yate]

plfranke wrote...

Yate wrote...

Sauruz wrote...

ME2 already gave us enough explanation. Reapers harvest civilizations to create new Reapers - to preserve their species. Why couldn't they just leave it at that?

People complained about that as well.

Now everyone likes ME2's ending.

And so it goes...

Not everyone's complaining should be heard though. If someone says "I don't like this because it wasn't good" then they haven't given good enough reasons to call it in to discussion. However, lets look at the mass effect 3 story. We're on Rannoch about to conclude the Geth vs the Quarians arc, an end to the story that's been told from the beginning of the game. The reveal is then made that Reapers' motivations are to stop the conflict between organics and synthetics. We then proceed to resolve that conflict. Yet, the Reapers are still Reaping. That is not good storytelling in any way.

Quarian/Geth peace isn't going to last

you've basically got a temporary ceasefire

and saying that the Reapers' motivation is to stop the conflict between organics and synthetics is like saying Shepard's motivation is to stop the conflict between organics and the Reapers

sure it's true, but it's nowhere near the full picture

[M Hedonist]

I don't know about you, but I would rather make theories on the Reapers than making theories on what  happened to the characters I actually care about.
But that's what it boils down to, isn't it? Opinions. What some people would've preferred VS what others prefer. So maybe Bioware would've made more people happy if they instead clarified what become of our beloved characters - but that doesn't give anyone the right to say they did the wrong thing. Bioware chose to make the endings this way and there isn't much point arguing about it 8 months after the game's release - after they have stated they wouldn't make any more content regarding the endings.
I'm tired...

[Headcount]

Nightwriter wrote...

People want them to remain a mystery because the truth turned out to be horrifyingly disappointing.

Or maybe that's just me. Yeah, probably just me.

No, it's definitely not just you. 

[KingZayd]

Yate wrote...

plfranke wrote...

If you're going to play up the Reaper's motivations with "It is not a thing you can comprehend" you have to actually make it something we can not comprehend. When we find out their motivations are in fact not only something we can comprehend, but something that has been done to death in sci fi, people don't like it. Bottom line is this, people enjoyed seeing a villain that was actually above and beyond the protagonist. The Reapers lost that in more ways than one in me3, not just the synthetics vs organics nonsense. The Reaper on Tutchanka being taken down by a worm, Reaper on Rannoch not able to hit a single human. Basically the Reapers were nerfed, and while I agree that certain demands by people on the BSN like Thane living are somewhat unreasonable, they're not wrong that no reason would have been better than what we got. If a motivation was going to be given, it would have had to of been something never seen before by the audience. That way, the Reapers don't lose all their credibility from the prior "It is not a thing you can comprehend" build up.

it's been made pretty clear Sovereign isn't telling the whole truth in ME1

What motivation did Sovereign have for lying?

[Armass81]

eddieoctane wrote...

Armass81 wrote...


Theyre far from Gods if you can destroy them...

Um...nope. In fact, lots of cultures have myths about gods dying. The Norse readily come to mind, but the concept springs up the world over. So unless you want to argue that Lovecraft knows more about culture than a couple of millenia and a few million noresemen, that statement is invalid.

I was talking about mortals killing them. I think its generally accepted that mortals cant kill true Gods. However you define a true God. I wouldnt call Norse Gods true Gods even if they would exist. Which they dont.

Modifié par Armass81, 05 novembre 2012 - 10:39 .

[KingZayd]

Armass81 wrote...

eddieoctane wrote...

Armass81 wrote...


Theyre far from Gods if you can destroy them...

Um...nope. In fact, lots of cultures have myths about gods dying. The Norse readily come to mind, but the concept springs up the world over. So unless you want to argue that Lovecraft knows more about culture than a couple of millenia and a few million noresemen, that statement is invalid.

I was talking about mortals killing them. Mortals cant kill true Gods. However you define a true God. I wouldnt call Norse Gods true Gods even if they would exist. Which they dont.

If the gods in question can die, then they are mortals too. So who's killing the gods?

[The Night Mammoth]

Why? Because the motivation they have right now is mind-numbingly stupid. I'd prefer having a hole in the story than to have the terrible truth.