237 réponses à ce sujet

[MegaSovereign]

How exactly does Destroy validate the Reaper's plans?

[M Hedonist]

LucasShark wrote...

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

Refuse is the only "villain" choice because you go against the Reaper's plans. And since the narrative shifts to say "The Reapers are not your enemy, they have been helping you, but now you need to help them" they are no longer the villains either. I never thought the game would make the Reapers the good guys, but there you are, refuse them, and you become the villain. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to flush that out of my system.

"reapers = good guys", this is idiotic.

I see you're starting to realize the endings are bad.
Wait, I mixed you up with that other guy using the same avatar. My bad.

Modifié par Sauruz, 30 décembre 2012 - 09:08 .

[Ticonderoga117]

LucasShark wrote...

"reapers = good guys", this is idiotic.

That's what the narrative says. Look at the ending. What are we dealing with? The conflict between organics and synthetics. Who were the ones supposedly stemming this issue? The Reapers. Who gives us the end all be all measures to deal with this issue? The Reaper King.

We are no longer trying to stop the Reapers because otherwise Shepard would've told him off.

[M Hedonist]

Ach, I am starting to make too many mistakes. I'll better leave this highly stimulating discussion... Monty Python and the Holy Grail is on TV.

[Reorte]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

Refuse is the only "villain" choice because you go against the Reaper's plans. And since the narrative shifts to say "The Reapers are not your enemy, they have been helping you, but now you need to help them" they are no longer the villains either. I never thought the game would make the Reapers the good guys, but there you are, refuse them, and you become the villain. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to flush that out of my system.

Only if you really, totally believe the nonsense that the Catalyst spews and agree with its methods. Even if its nonsesne wasn't nonsense it would still be the enemy. Take, for example, a lot of the problems faced with the world today. Many of them wouldn't exist, or wouldn't be anywhere near as severe, if there were a lot fewer people in the world but I really hope you wouldn't regard someone as not your enemy if they tried to solve that problem by killing a few billion people.

[Ticonderoga117]

Reorte wrote...

Only if you really, totally believe the nonsense that the Catalyst spews and agree with its methods. Even if its nonsesne wasn't nonsense it would still be the enemy. Take, for example, a lot of the problems faced with the world today. Many of them wouldn't exist, or wouldn't be anywhere near as severe, if there were a lot fewer people in the world but I really hope you wouldn't regard someone as not your enemy if they tried to solve that problem by killing a few billion people.

I'm not saying I like it, but that's what the game is trying to push on us. Otherwise why does Shepard even listen to this bloody kid the moment we find out he's behind the Reapers? Why can't we argue the validity of his point? Etc etc. This is one of the major shifts that disconnects the ending from the rest of the game. It also doesn't help that refuse makes you the villain.

[Rifneno]

Re: The Prothean data on Mars.

The place was not small. It wasn't a massive ruin, but it wasn't a small insignificant one. The Protheans had stuff in vaults. The final vaults, the ones hardest to crack, were only broken into between ME2 and ME3. It took over 20 years. Sounds a little extreme, but we are talking about the security measures of a race that could send a star into supernova at will.

[Dean_the_Young]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Only if you really, totally believe the nonsense that the Catalyst spews and agree with its methods. Even if its nonsesne wasn't nonsense it would still be the enemy. Take, for example, a lot of the problems faced with the world today. Many of them wouldn't exist, or wouldn't be anywhere near as severe, if there were a lot fewer people in the world but I really hope you wouldn't regard someone as not your enemy if they tried to solve that problem by killing a few billion people.

I'm not saying I like it, but that's what the game is trying to push on us. Otherwise why does Shepard even listen to this bloody kid the moment we find out he's behind the Reapers?

Because video games and other fiction typically offer the antagonist a chance to explain their motivations and perspectives without being interrupted.

Why can't we argue the validity of his point? Etc etc.

Why couldn't you argue with Legion about the Geth failings and culpability for their isolation and Quarian war attittudes? Why couldn't you try and convince Wrex that the genophage cure would destroy his reforms, and thus doom the Krogan? Why couldn't you tell Liara to grow a pair and stop moaning about Banshees and the invasion of Thessia?

Because games, by their nature, always have been and always be limited in the avenues of discussion the writers feel like taking it. Shepard doesn't need to argue the validity of the Catalyst's motivations: all Shepard needs to care about is the Crucible to stop the Reapers.

It also doesn't help that refuse makes you the villain.

Refuse just makes you a stupid hero who puts principle over everyone else. The villains are still the Reapers.

[crimzontearz]

Bioware says many things

[TheInquisitor]

I always wanted to side with cerberus in ME3 kinda like you could in ME2. Ah well.

[StoneSwords]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Only if you really, totally believe the nonsense that the Catalyst spews and agree with its methods. Even if its nonsesne wasn't nonsense it would still be the enemy. Take, for example, a lot of the problems faced with the world today. Many of them wouldn't exist, or wouldn't be anywhere near as severe, if there were a lot fewer people in the world but I really hope you wouldn't regard someone as not your enemy if they tried to solve that problem by killing a few billion people.

I'm not saying I like it, but that's what the game is trying to push on us. Otherwise why does Shepard even listen to this bloody kid the moment we find out he's behind the Reapers? Why can't we argue the validity of his point? Etc etc. This is one of the major shifts that disconnects the ending from the rest of the game. It also doesn't help that refuse makes you the villain.

Actually, without metagaming, refuse is probably what most Shepards would go with.  He's got this seemingly insane AI kid telling him to pick one of 3 morally ambiguous choices, but Shepard has built his career on always finding a better way and pulling off a win in impossible odds.  How is he to know that by refusing to bow his head to the Reaper god he's dooming his entire cycle?  So I wouldn't call refusal making Shepard a villain in any way, unless he already knew what was coming up, which he didn't.

[Iakus]

MegaSovereign wrote...

How exactly does Destroy validate the Reaper's plans?

Organics and synthetics can't coexist.  So eliminate the synthetics

[DeinonSlayer]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Why couldn't you argue with Legion about the Geth failings and culpability for their isolation and Quarian war attittudes? Why couldn't you try and convince Wrex that the genophage cure would destroy his reforms, and thus doom the Krogan? Why couldn't you tell Liara to grow a pair and stop moaning about Banshees and the invasion of Thessia?

Designated victim groups - and as such, above reproach. We're supposed to feel bad for them and not question their actions. In some of these cases, I honestly think we're supposed to have forgotten the things they've done in order to see them as more sympathetic.

Out of these three, I'd say the Krogan got the most balanced presentation. We can call out the Geth for some of the things they've done (well, one thing anyway), but can't (for example) question the authenticity of the Consensus footage or call out the philosophical 180 on Reaper code (plus there being no mention of the whole "killed billions of people" thing). The worst of these is Thessia - automatically apologizing to Tevos and Shepard blaming him/herself for what happened there, then acting like a pissy douche to everyone else on the ship (except Liara).

Plus Liara with the banshees... how many human husks have we fought by this point?

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 31 décembre 2012 - 04:43 .

[Steelcan]

iakus wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

How exactly does Destroy validate the Reaper's plans?

Organics and synthetics can't coexist.  So eliminate the synthetics

Not my interpretation but whatever

[Shinobu]

Sauruz wrote...

Ach, I am starting to make too many mistakes. I'll better leave this highly stimulating discussion... Monty Python and the Holy Grail is on TV.

I loved this scene.

[DeinonSlayer]

Shinobu wrote...

Sauruz wrote...

Ach, I am starting to make too many mistakes. I'll better leave this highly stimulating discussion... Monty Python and the Holy Grail is on TV.

I loved this scene.

Oh my God

[Iakus]

Steelcan wrote...

iakus wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

How exactly does Destroy validate the Reaper's plans?

Organics and synthetics can't coexist.  So eliminate the synthetics

Not my interpretation but whatever

It's the Catalyst's "problem"

It's one of the Catalyst's new "solutions"

And it's the outcome of the choice.

[Ultranovae]

Wow this community is really negative.

Shouldn't be surprised by now.
Actually I was let down I never got to be the evil one, I really hoped there would be a point if no return where you're indoctrinated and end up submitting to the will of the reapers
(Go ahead ending whiners and IT'ers, pick that sentence apart)
I envisioned some ending where you in fact succumb to the reapers like Saren and later the illusive man did. So personally, Shepard's mental invulnerability to indoctrination pulled me out of the fiction.


The rest of the endings are pretty goody rainbows and happiness considering the fact that the price to pay is the extermination of trillions of lives.
Destroy annihilates a whole race of sentiment machines and that's the choice that's probably the one with the worst consequences.

Control you become a watchful entities for the depths ( and not an evil dictator unlike what people want to imagine, fact is there's no indication in th ending of such result, deal with it)
Synthesis, everyone ends up living happily ever after as an evolved improved version of life. Life 2.0
And refusal, well he's a major idiot for picking refusal because no one in his right mind would condemn all life that has lived and will live to certain destruction based on his/her morals.

[Xilizhra]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Why couldn't you argue with Legion about the Geth failings and culpability for their isolation and Quarian war attittudes? Why couldn't you try and convince Wrex that the genophage cure would destroy his reforms, and thus doom the Krogan? Why couldn't you tell Liara to grow a pair and stop moaning about Banshees and the invasion of Thessia?

Designated victim groups - and as such, above reproach. We're supposed to feel bad for them and not question their actions. In some of these cases, I honestly think we're supposed to have forgotten the things they've done in order to see them as more sympathetic.

Out of these three, I'd say the Krogan got the most balanced presentation. We can call out the Geth for some of the things they've done (well, one thing anyway), but can't (for example) question the authenticity of the Consensus footage or call out the philosophical 180 on Reaper code (plus there being no mention of the whole "killed billions of people" thing). The worst of these is Thessia - automatically apologizing to Tevos and Shepard blaming him/herself for what happened there, then acting like a pissy douche to everyone else on the ship (except Liara).

Plus Liara with the banshees... how many human husks have we fought by this point?

Shepard never acts like a pissy douche. Joker deserved worse, and EDI was also being annoying. To the others, she's never antagonistic.

Also, banshees are a lot scarier than husks.

[DeinonSlayer]

Xilizhra wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Why couldn't you argue with Legion about the Geth failings and culpability for their isolation and Quarian war attittudes? Why couldn't you try and convince Wrex that the genophage cure would destroy his reforms, and thus doom the Krogan? Why couldn't you tell Liara to grow a pair and stop moaning about Banshees and the invasion of Thessia?

Designated victim groups - and as such, above reproach. We're supposed to feel bad for them and not question their actions. In some of these cases, I honestly think we're supposed to have forgotten the things they've done in order to see them as more sympathetic.

Out of these three, I'd say the Krogan got the most balanced presentation. We can call out the Geth for some of the things they've done (well, one thing anyway), but can't (for example) question the authenticity of the Consensus footage or call out the philosophical 180 on Reaper code (plus there being no mention of the whole "killed billions of people" thing). The worst of these is Thessia - automatically apologizing to Tevos and Shepard blaming him/herself for what happened there, then acting like a pissy douche to everyone else on the ship (except Liara).

Plus Liara with the banshees... how many human husks have we fought by this point?

Shepard never acts like a pissy douche. Joker deserved worse, and EDI was also being annoying. To the others, she's never antagonistic.

Also, banshees are a lot scarier than husks.

The conversation with Anderson after Thessia amounts to "choose your flavor of butthurt." I'd be fine with a "Joker deserved worse" option if we threw in a "chew out Tevos" option too - par for the course. I know you'd disagree with that, but a lot of people don't.

Fair point about the banshees, but you never see anyone else broken up about what the Reapers turn their kind into.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 31 décembre 2012 - 05:36 .

[txgoldrush]

iakus wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

iakus wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

How exactly does Destroy validate the Reaper's plans?

Organics and synthetics can't coexist.  So eliminate the synthetics

Not my interpretation but whatever

It's the Catalyst's "problem"

It's one of the Catalyst's new "solutions"

And it's the outcome of the choice.

No its not, the Catalyst warns you against picking Destroy as he states the chaos will come back.

If the Reapers are destroyed, the Catalyst fails in his purpose.

[Necrotron]

Well, no 'hero' from another story would have accepted the main villain dictating that they pick one of their pre-designed choices that resulted in genocide or mass rewriting of DNA, etc.

So, what is Shepard at the end? Pathetic? Yes. Subjugated? Definetly. Without a choice? For sure. Pick your poison. You lose any way you go, at least your soul, but you'll save 'some', right? It's a dark, bitter ending any way you go, and the only way to get there is to blindly trust that the main villain you've been fighting against the entire time has suddenly gotten a benevolent streak.

Also, bowing out before some of the more offensive people on the network start calling people names and being generally offensive towards everyone who has a different opinion.

Modifié par Bathaius, 31 décembre 2012 - 07:10 .

[txgoldrush]

LucasShark wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

LucasShark wrote...
Conduit V crucible:

Origin:
Conduit - at first mysterious, but explained without a doubt
Crucible - unknown, and never explained

Actual device:
Conduit - an unlocking and replication of already existing in universe technology
Crucible - magical problem-solving device

Arrival in the story:
Conduit - arises naturally into the narrative
Crucible - Is discovered conveniently enough at the precise moment we need it, in a location which was previously stated to be depleated of useful information, and then is treated as the only option despite being ill-defined

Actual functionality:
Conduit - possible given in-universe lore
Crucible - presents things which are utterly impossible, by in=-universe lore, and real-world physics

Treatment in the narrative:
Conduit - treated as an unknown, which it is
Crucible - treated as the only hope of the cycle, despite not knowing what it does, how it does it, how it is deployed, or what a final component actually is!

One of these things is not like the other!

If the Conduit arises logically from the narrative, why does Saren even need it? He doesn't. The role of the Conduit is not logical for the bad guy when he has other methods he could have used and used without exposing himself. The conduit was a poor attempt by Drew K to be clever.

As for the origins, it doesn't matter how the Crucible got started, only that it did. It doesn't matter if cat people or a rabbit type race made it, its not important. Whats important is that somebody tried to make a device, failed, and past on the idea to the next cycle, which fits thematically of what ME1 established, past cycles helping future cycles. The refusal ending confirms this.

As for actual functionality, lets see, the Crucible turns the Reapers own tech, the relay system against them. This is definitely plausable in the in game universe.

As for introduction in the narrative....if you weren't ignorant you would know that the people on Mars never had access to the lower archives because they didn't have the encyrption key. Liara finds it on Kahje, and accesses the Prothean ruins on Mars. Its all in the lore. The Crucible comes out of the plot not of contrivance but because of the actions of the deuteragonist of the series. She did say in LotSB that she will use her resources to find a way to stop the Reapers and that the Broker had more Prothean data not yet used. And if you want to write off out of game lore, than you will have to call ME2's opening the most contrived moment of the series.

A hint, Liara fills in the missing gaps between ME1 and ME2, and ME2 and ME3.

We discover the conduit because we gain some intel on Saren's plans, not because it drops out of the proverbial sky into our laps.  And it is made perfectly clear WHY he does in fact need it.

Origins are not irrevelant: since what little info we have violates Occam's razor in the most insane way possible.

FUncionality: The crucible can generate an energy wave which expands infinately, can analyze what it passes over, and then can alter it, in the same instant, treating organic and synthetic items differently, and without killing what it passes over.  THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE!

As for the introduction of "the mars archive": IT DIDN'T EXIST BEFOREHAND!  Mars was "a small outpost" a "small data cache".  This was never supposed to be special, in any way.

Wrong again, the Crucible is discovered because, Liara in her  quest to stop the Reapers, actively seeks out and finds through her effort, the Crucible. Actions of a major character established in the lore lead to the Crucible, not a contrived circumstance.

Origins can be irrelevant when its simply not important. Its not important to know who created the Crucible first.

Mass Relays are impossible, FTL is impossible, raising the dead with full memory intact is impossible, and you want to criticize the Crucible when the whole series is basedof implausiblity. Don't be a hypocrite. As for in game lore, the fact that the Crucible does use the tech of the Reapers against them does make it not contrived.

But then Liara found out that it was special, becuase you know the actions of the second most important character in the saga.

And really, stop being a hypocrite because ME1 and ME2 has very contrived moments and parts. Please, explain how th elazarus Project worked (not how Shep got to Cerberus but the actual revival process) because that moment is so contrived its not even funny.

You clearly don't consume Science fiction very often: Mass Effect's entire universe revolves around a proposition: "what if we had this stuff called Element zero which violates 1 physical principal we currently don't understand completely, let's examine what is possible in this context."   It DOES NOT mean "let's just make **** up because it looks cool."

See ME2 opening...where is your criticism of the Lazarus Project...oh wait, its not ME3.

You obviously ignore the contrivance of the first two games.

THIS IS NOT THE ME2 FORUM!

The project serves a narrative purpose: because at the time we were playing Shepard as an avatar, meaning, in order for events to move forward and for us to not get a massive infodump at the start of the game, was for Shepard to be out of the picture.

I DO have major problems with ME2, and few with ME1, but 3 is like solid insanity.

Let the hypocrisy flow.

The entire storyline for ME1 is contrived an dthe end game is contrived. The entire Vigil sequence is by far a Deus Ex Machina, played straight, where a new element comes out of nowhere and helps Shepard win. However, here is an example of a DEM well done as it was a theme builder and a highlight moment. However, its still contrived, such as Tali's enterance into ME1, or the Cipher, or the entire Joker part in the endgame. Nevermind once again, why does Saren need the Conduit when he can use other methods without even drawing suspicion? This is where ME1 falls apart.

And yet you are excusing ME2's clearly contrived SPACE MAGIC that was the Lazarus Project, while calling the Crucible unbelievable.....wow. Thats hypocrisy at its finest. Not only bring Shepard back to live but restore all his memories, and you are defending this because it serves a narrative purpose....well, SO DOES THE CRUCIBLE!!!!!

There are other ways to take a protagonist out of the picture....Deus Ex Human Revolution did this well, ME2 did not. Face it, Drew K and his team wanted a shock opening which ended up being contrived and off the wall....it is the worst, most contrived moment in the entire story.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 31 décembre 2012 - 07:05 .

[Iakus]

What's with the quote pyramids?