fiendishchicken wrote...
CosmicGnosis wrote...
Why can't they be a necessary evil? I hoped that they would be. It makes the story far more interesting to me. I like stories that force me to reevaluate everything that I ever knew before certain revelations. I like stories that encourage me to consider new perspectives or solutions.
Mass Effect 3 did what I was hoping it would do. The problem is that the writers got rather sloppy with it. So I don't like the handling of it, but I like the fundamental concept.
Those are well and dandy ideas for a story. Problem is, in Mass Effecy, in regards to the Reapers, it's not. And it shouldn't be. The Reapers have been consistently shown to have no motivation beyond killing all intelligent life and using the remains to make a new reaper. They in fact tell you themselves multiple times, and are the doom and gloom arrogant death machines. This keeps in line with what they are portrayed as. Anything and anyone that went against that grain was always shown to have been indoctrinated. Thematically, there is absolutely no need to see past what the Reapers do. It's plain and simple. Survival or extinction.
Then comes the catalyst to throw that all out so that Casey Hudson can tell his story about how organics and synthetics can never coexist unless you pick the transhumanism method that kills you. It's jarring, and it is thematically irreconcilable with the rest of the trilogy. The catalysts existence is a blatant contradiction to the established lore of the Reapers. Everything about him is a fail. Everything he brings up is not necessarily random, but it completely changes the premise of the franchise in the final moments. It also portrays anything that doesn't go along those lines (Destroy, Refuse) in a negative light, to try to goad you into accepting what Casey wants you to accept.
That is horrible writing. The purpose should never have been to fix the catalysts problems. The purpose should have been what the series made it to be until the last bloody 10 minutes - to end the Reapers forever, or be destroyed by them.
The fundamental concept is ok. Just not for Mass Effect. That's why Mass Effect 3's ending utterly failed.
Your opinion, not everyones. And using the massive fleet of trolls and haters on this forum as justification doesn't constitute everyone.
The reason the Reapers' motives were not revealed in ME1 or ME2 was because the writers didn't want to. If you noticed, the games were following along a pattern.
In ME1, you learn the Reapers exist, but do not learn why or what they do with harvested organics. And Sovereign says "We are each a nation"
In ME2, you learn the Reapers use organic DNA to construct new Reapers, shedding light on what Sovereign meant. And the game ends off with Harbinger saying "That which you know as Reapers are your salvation through destruction."
In Retribution, the Reaper controlling Grayson told Kahlee, "We seek salvation. Yours and ours."
In ME3, you find out that the Reapers do the Cycle to prevent total extinction of organic life by preserving advanced civilizations and synthetic races as new Reapers, shedding light on what Harbinger meant, and reinforcing what Sovereign meant.
Just because that motive isn't what you prefer doesn't invalidate it. The original motive from Drew Karpyshyn's regin(you know, the guy who pioneered Mass Effect and shaped the game's setting and lore) was stopping dark energy, which was hinted at in ME2. But a lot of people thought that was worse than what we got because it was too dark(no pun intended.)
The fact that the Reapers were doing this for what they believed was our own good was obvious.
Modifié par The Grey Nayr, 15 janvier 2013 - 12:05 .
Retour en haut
