140 réponses à ce sujet

[Maverick827]

draken-heart wrote...

Nothing of the game makes sense, because I believe it is supposed to be played from an I.T. mindset, or just play with the "it was all a coma dream" in terms of the entire trilogy.

You not understanding it doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense.

[draken-heart]

Maverick827 wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

Nothing of the game makes sense, because I believe it is supposed to be played from an I.T. mindset, or just play with the "it was all a coma dream" in terms of the entire trilogy.

You not understanding it doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense.

What I mean is, why bother worry explaining the reaper backstory when you can explain away the entire game.

Modifié par draken-heart, 18 mars 2013 - 10:53 .

[Nykara]

I have no problem with the Reaper back story at all. It even makes sense to me really even if I think it is flawed. The catalyst was a whole different story though but even it made sense to a degree even if I didn't like it's options.

[TheIdiocyWizard2.0]

Mcfly616 wrote...

There would've been major outrage (on par with the endings) had the mysteries of the Reapers not been revealed. Maybe you didn't like what it turned out to be. Maybe its your own fault for assuming you knew how everything would turn out. Fighting against monsters who have no other motivation but to kill you is extremely dull. And there would've been backlash on a monumental scale. People already complain about the little speculation there is in the ending.....could you imagine how much more complaining there would be if we had to speculate everything about the Reapers?!

I've been wondering about the Reapers since ME1. I love the characters, the galaxy and all that. But my main thought since ME1, was about the Reapers. What are they? Where did they come from? What's their motivation? How are we going to beat them?

Anybody who says they didn't wonder the same things are either lying or they're just using hindsight to express that they didnt like the way it turned out. Hell, I had ideas of what the answers of all these questions would be.....the difference is, I never expected my ideas to turn out to be correct, and that's why I'm fine with it. It makes sense and that's all I can ask for.


If you've been playing since ME1 and didn't think Shepard wouldn't uncover the secrets of the Reapers, then you were pretty naive

There probably would have been some outrage, but the amount of outrage would have deepended on how they wrote the ending. And I don't think people are really against speculation itself but rather what we were forced to speculate on.  The original endings forced us to speculate on whether or not everyone really survived in the end, whether or not civilization was sent into a new dark age, and just what the hell the big colorful pulses did since they were so poorly explained and the cutscene was the same for each ending, the only difference being the color.

Now, I'm not saying I wasn't curious about the Reaper's origins, nor am I saying that I wasn't excited to find out, but what I am saying is that the Reapers were set up in such a way that any origin story I can think of doesn't really work. I think that leaving it a mystery could have worked very well, if done properly.

And if BW wanted something for the audience to think of, to speculate on, they could of done something like this (though note that I'm litterally just thinking of this right now, so it'll be a little rough around the edges.):
Instead of "Can Organics and Synthetics coexist?", which was already settled via the Rannoch arc, they could have done something along the lines of, "Because we don't know how the Reapers came to be, almost any path can lead to their recreation, and that is the truly horrifying thing." With that, they could have established a feeling of hope for the future, but also a feeling that, perhaps, our own flaws will lead to this happening again. Personally I think that would have been better than the question we got from the current ending, though I really can't say if this would have fit with the ME story as a whole, as I certaintly would bever say that that was the theme of the story.

Sorry for the wall. Cookies to those who read it.

[Absaroka]

Maverick827 wrote...

Absaroka wrote...

It simply doesn't match well with the sadism and barbarity of their methods

Reapers have no concept of sadism or barbarity.  They don't care about the current cycle and how they appear to organics.  They care about preserving organic life for eternity.  Everything is a means to an end.

let alone when some of their methods seem counterproductive to their goals (i.e. leaving behind advanced technology, inciting conflict between organics and synthetics).

Leaving behind technology allows them to control technological evolution.  It allows them to pinpoint approximately when organic civilization is reaching that "oh ****, synthetics are going to kill everyone" boiling point.  It makes all advanced life reliant on technology they don't understand.  It both pushes them forward was well as handicaps them.

Inciting conflict between organics and synthetics is not counterproductive to their goals because they inherently assume that there will be conflict anyway.  When Soverign requisitioned the Geth, it was already decided that this cycle was over.  The Reaper's aren't interested in making peace between organics and synthetics in any one cycle.

I'm talking from a narrative standpoint, which is largely what this discussion is about; the writer's intent was to give the Reaper's a noble purpose that the players were expected to go along with (and are primarily the reasons why Synthesis and Control exist as they do now).  If their purpose was framed in-universe as well-intentioned, that would be one thing but trying to justify it to the point where players had to go along with it with complete seriousness was a recipe for disaster especially in light of how Reapers were previously characterized.

And mechanically, leaving behind technology and manipulating synthetic species is no more advantageous to their given goals as not doing so because it introduces far more variables that could potentially interfere with them. By leaving behind technology, they effectively slingshot the development of species who might possibly die out before even developing synthetic life. They have not merely incited and exacerbated conflict between organics and synthetics but also in doing so even upgraded synthetic species to better wage war.  In effect they not only give reason and capability to synthetics for the very conflict the Catalyst was made to prevent but also provide a window of opportunity for those synthetics to eventually grow out of hand. That the Reapers intend to wipe them out before that happens is at best a gamble given that other advanced species have managed to fall under their radar before. 

[Mcfly616]

TheIdiocyWizard2.0 wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

There would've been major outrage (on par with the endings) had the mysteries of the Reapers not been revealed. Maybe you didn't like what it turned out to be. Maybe its your own fault for assuming you knew how everything would turn out. Fighting against monsters who have no other motivation but to kill you is extremely dull. And there would've been backlash on a monumental scale. People already complain about the little speculation there is in the ending.....could you imagine how much more complaining there would be if we had to speculate everything about the Reapers?!

I've been wondering about the Reapers since ME1. I love the characters, the galaxy and all that. But my main thought since ME1, was about the Reapers. What are they? Where did they come from? What's their motivation? How are we going to beat them?

Anybody who says they didn't wonder the same things are either lying or they're just using hindsight to express that they didnt like the way it turned out. Hell, I had ideas of what the answers of all these questions would be.....the difference is, I never expected my ideas to turn out to be correct, and that's why I'm fine with it. It makes sense and that's all I can ask for.


If you've been playing since ME1 and didn't think Shepard wouldn't uncover the secrets of the Reapers, then you were pretty naive

There probably would have been some outrage, but the amount of outrage would have deepended on how they wrote the ending. And I don't think people are really against speculation itself but rather what we were forced to speculate on.  The original endings forced us to speculate on whether or not everyone really survived in the end, whether or not civilization was sent into a new dark age, and just what the hell the big colorful pulses did since they were so poorly explained and the cutscene was the same for each ending, the only difference being the color.

Now, I'm not saying I wasn't curious about the Reaper's origins, nor am I saying that I wasn't excited to find out, but what I am saying is that the Reapers were set up in such a way that any origin story I can think of doesn't really work. I think that leaving it a mystery could have worked very well, if done properly.

And if BW wanted something for the audience to think of, to speculate on, they could of done something like this (though note that I'm litterally just thinking of this right now, so it'll be a little rough around the edges.):
Instead of "Can Organics and Synthetics coexist?", which was already settled via the Rannoch arc, they could have done something along the lines of, "Because we don't know how the Reapers came to be, almost any path can lead to their recreation, and that is the truly horrifying thing." With that, they could have established a feeling of hope for the future, but also a feeling that, perhaps, our own flaws will lead to this happening again. Personally I think that would have been better than the question we got from the current ending, though I really can't say if this would have fit with the ME story as a whole, as I certaintly would bever say that that was the theme of the story.

Sorry for the wall. Cookies to those who read it.

I hated the original endings because it forced me to speculate on the fate of the galaxy, and it just didn't make sense. After EC, I'm fine with it. However, many people will still tell you that they didn't give a damn about the galaxy or Earth. Those people still b*tch and moan about the "lack of closure" when it comes to the squadmates, and the idea that they have to "speculate" on what happens to them after the war (which is ironic and quite funny to me, considering each squadmate tells you what they are going to do if they survive the war). Words aren't enough for some people. They need pictures lol

I like your idea of a speculative conclusion to the Reapers. A lot of sci fi is like that. But, I have a hard time believing people would've been alright with it. I happen to disagree with your assertion that people aren't against speculation, as I referenced above as it pertains to squadmates etc.



Good post though. Chocolate chip, please....

Modifié par Mcfly616, 18 mars 2013 - 11:01 .

[SaintsFan101]

Loaderini wrote...

The Synthetics vs Organics chaos explanation would fit more to the trilogy if it was a theme explored again and again in the games. Even with sporadic mentions and missions, it was not a main theme in any of the three games. For example, when the Fringe series ended, the ending's theme was nicely and properly written to fit the entire series' theme.

this.

A theme of "unity despite diversity" ran through the series and the whole point of Shepard's journey in ME3 was to unite all the races of the free galaxy (to which Javik states might be their greatest strength).

Then all of a sudden the whole machines will always kill organics and vice versa because the biggest point.

It just didn't lead up well...

[Mcfly616]

SaintsFan101 wrote...

Loaderini wrote...

The Synthetics vs Organics chaos explanation would fit more to the trilogy if it was a theme explored again and again in the games. Even with sporadic mentions and missions, it was not a main theme in any of the three games. For example, when the Fringe series ended, the ending's theme was nicely and properly written to fit the entire series' theme.

this.

A theme of "unity despite diversity" ran through the series and the whole point of Shepard's journey in ME3 was to unite all the races of the free galaxy (to which Javik states might be their greatest strength).

Then all of a sudden the whole machines will always kill organics and vice versa because the biggest point.

It just didn't lead up well...

sorry, but that is merely your own assumption of what the "theme" was. There is no stated, single main/overarching theme to the trilogy. There are many underlying themes throughout the series, some of which took part in the ending.


And I'm not quite sure what trilogy you played, considering the organic/synthetic conflict is ever-present throughout all 3 games.....

[AlanC9]

Absaroka wrote..
I'm talking from a narrative standpoint, which is largely what this discussion is about; the writer's intent was to give the Reaper's a noble purpose that the players were expected to go along with (and are primarily the reasons why Synthesis and Control exist as they do now).  

I don't see how the Reapers' motivations have anything to do with Control.

If their purpose was framed in-universe as well-intentioned, that would be one thing but trying to justify it to the point where players had to go along with it with complete seriousness was a recipe for disaster especially in light of how Reapers were previously characterized.

This is much more applicable to the old Dark Energy plot. In the actual ME3 a player doesn't have to think the Reapers were right. 

I agree that the Reaper plan may be causing the problem they're tring to solve. ME1 dug the series a pretty deep hole

[Dr. Megaverse]

Astartes Marine wrote...

They should have remained like Freespace's Shivans...

You sir, have made my day with this epic reference.  I could not think of a more apt comparison.  Part of what makes the Shivans such a fantastic enemy is while you are aware of their power, and their motheods, their motivations are never explained.  Beyond a vague hint at them being "an angry galaxy's response to ftl travel" you are left to speculate as to the why.  Are they still a terrifying enemy of immeasurable power? Yes.  do they still inspire that "awe factor" when confronted, and especilly when bested?  Yes.  They work so well as an example of how the "unknowable enemy" can be utilized for telling a story which inspires awe, devotion, and interest, without having to spell out in so many words whats going on.  It's akin, to me, to the creature in the horror movie you haven't seen.  When it's still a figure from our imagination it's infinitely more terrifying and frightening.  The moment it's revealed it's Scooby Doo and yourr level of fear and excitement (and for me personally interest) drops.  I see the comparison to Lovecraft's work made frequently here, and one of the elements he mastered was the "infinitely unknowable" which is part of why his works, to me, are so terrifying at such a primordial level...

Modifié par Dr. Megaverse, 18 mars 2013 - 11:33 .

[MegaSovereign]

I feel like the Reapers having a broader definition of conflict would be more fitting.

[TheIdiocyWizard2.0]

Mcfly616 wrote...

SaintsFan101 wrote...


this.

A theme of "unity despite diversity" ran through the series and the whole point of Shepard's journey in ME3 was to unite all the races of the free galaxy (to which Javik states might be their greatest strength).

Then all of a sudden the whole machines will always kill organics and vice versa because the biggest point.

It just didn't lead up well...

sorry, but that is merely your own assumption of what the "theme" was. There is no stated, single main/overarching theme to the trilogy. There are many underlying themes throughout the series, some of which took part in the ending.


And I'm not quite sure what trilogy you played, considering the organic/synthetic conflict is ever-present throughout all 3 games.....

Just because the conflict of the story was "Synthetics vs Organics" doesn't mean it was the theme. It was a subtheme, but not the main one.
Personally I think the theme of the main story was something along the lines of "Overcoming impossible odds", but "Unity despite diversity" is definitely up there, and in more focus than "Synthetics vs. Organics" by a long shot. While it wasn't really big in ME1, it is presented as the only way to victory in both ME2 and ME3.

[Mcfly616]

TheIdiocyWizard2.0 wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

SaintsFan101 wrote...


this.

A theme of "unity despite diversity" ran through the series and the whole point of Shepard's journey in ME3 was to unite all the races of the free galaxy (to which Javik states might be their greatest strength).

Then all of a sudden the whole machines will always kill organics and vice versa because the biggest point.

It just didn't lead up well...

sorry, but that is merely your own assumption of what the "theme" was. There is no stated, single main/overarching theme to the trilogy. There are many underlying themes throughout the series, some of which took part in the ending.


And I'm not quite sure what trilogy you played, considering the organic/synthetic conflict is ever-present throughout all 3 games.....

Just because the conflict of the story was "Synthetics vs Organics" doesn't mean it was the theme. It was a subtheme, but not the main one.
Personally I think the theme of the main story was something along the lines of "Overcoming impossible odds", but "Unity despite diversity" is definitely up there, and in more focus than "Synthetics vs. Organics" by a long shot. While it wasn't really big in ME1, it is presented as the only way to victory in both ME2 and ME3.

I never said Organics/Synthetics was the main theme. I specifically said that there isnt a single "main theme" and that theres many underlying themes.


Regarding the main overall theme of the series, its never stated. It's completely subjective.

[Absaroka]

AlanC9 wrote...

Absaroka wrote..
I'm talking from a narrative standpoint, which is largely what this discussion is about; the writer's intent was to give the Reaper's a noble purpose that the players were expected to go along with (and are primarily the reasons why Synthesis and Control exist as they do now).  

I don't see how the Reapers' motivations have anything to do with Control.

If their purpose was framed in-universe as well-intentioned, that would be one thing but trying to justify it to the point where players had to go along with it with complete seriousness was a recipe for disaster especially in light of how Reapers were previously characterized.

This is much more applicable to the old Dark Energy plot. In the actual ME3 a player doesn't have to think the Reapers were right. 

I agree that the Reaper plan may be causing the problem they're tring to solve. ME1 dug the series a pretty deep hole

All three choices presented by the Catalyst are framed as finding "a new solution."  In Control Shepard literally takes up the Catalyst's sword and all the resources at its disposal as insurance against future conflicts, implicitly including those that might involve organics and synthetics. Otherwise, the ending could easily come off as a Shepard using the circumstances as a means to seize power (though admittedly, that is a valid interpretation).

Choosing Synthesis is also a tacit admission that Shepard regards the potential conflict between the two as a problem that needs adressing. Otherwise you would have to ascribe ulterior motives in choosing it, which would come off as incredibly morally dubious and irresponsible considering the unknowable magnitude of change it would bring along with the fact that Shepard would be choosing to help the entity that s/he disagrees with achieve its ultimate goal. 

With that said, Destroy and Refuse are the only endings that one could regard as Shepard rejecting the Catalyst's notions without ulterior motives unless you RP a Shepard that really wanted to kill the Geth or wanted everyone to die for some reason.

[AlanC9]

Dr. Megaverse wrote...

Astartes Marine wrote...

They should have remained like Freespace's Shivans...

You sir, have made my day with this epic reference.

Yeah,  the series that just stopped with no resolution of anything. Great model.

[AlanC9]

Edit: DP

Modifié par AlanC9, 19 mars 2013 - 12:10 .

[The Night Mammoth]

Ah nostalgia.

Remember when the Reapers were this:

https://encrypted-tb...0TwAEp9yPB8jOgQ





And not this:



As in, menacing, mysterious, moderately worthy antagonists to the series, and not just the pawns of an obviously flawed non-character shoe-horned in to give ten seconds to midnight exposition on what the hell any of it was all about?

I miss those times.

[TheIdiocyWizard2.0]

Mcfly616 wrote...

 I never said Organics/Synthetics was the main theme. I specifically said that there isnt a single "main theme" and that theres many underlying themes.


.

Well then I guess I misunderstood your post.

[KingZayd]

No.

Giving the Reapers a bad explanation ruined their backstory.
Putting the archenemy in such a strategic position, who has done nothing throughout the series until the very end ruined the Reapers.

If there was a good explanation, and the Starchild was located somewhere else or had an excuse for his incompetence then the ending wouldn't be so bad.

Modifié par KingZayd, 19 mars 2013 - 01:00 .

[AlanC9]

Absaroka wrote...
All three choices presented by the Catalyst are framed as finding "a new solution."  In Control Shepard literally takes up the Catalyst's sword and all the resources at its disposal as insurance against future conflicts, implicitly including those that might involve organics and synthetics. Otherwise, the ending could easily come off as a Shepard using the circumstances as a means to seize power (though admittedly, that is a valid interpretation).

Or Shepard could just be picking Control because it offers a chance for faster reconstruction and less collateral damage. That's why most Control fans here say they picked it; I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone say that the Catalyst's mission had anything to do with it.

Anyone who actually picked Control, that is. I've seen Destroy fans make stuff up about the other endings often enough.

[WarGriffin]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Ah nostalgia.

Remember when the Reapers were this:

https://encrypted-tb...0TwAEp9yPB8jOgQ





And not this:



As in, menacing, mysterious, moderately worthy antagonists to the series, and not just the pawns of an obviously flawed non-character shoe-horned in to give ten seconds to midnight exposition on what the hell any of it was all about?

I miss those times.

They lost all my respect when Shepard made fools of two reapers on foot.

[Absaroka]

AlanC9 wrote...

Absaroka wrote...
All three choices presented by the Catalyst are framed as finding "a new solution."  In Control Shepard literally takes up the Catalyst's sword and all the resources at its disposal as insurance against future conflicts, implicitly including those that might involve organics and synthetics. Otherwise, the ending could easily come off as a Shepard using the circumstances as a means to seize power (though admittedly, that is a valid interpretation).

Or Shepard could just be picking Control because it offers a chance for faster reconstruction and less collateral damage. That's why most Control fans here say they picked it; I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone say that the Catalyst's mission had anything to do with it.

Anyone who actually picked Control, that is. I've seen Destroy fans make stuff up about the other endings often enough.

Fair enough.

[Leonardo the Magnificent]

After a motive was hinted at in ME2, especially with the characterized Harbinger, a non-reveal would be worse. While I'm not a fan of the Catalyst, I am accepting of their motives with Leviathan. Not ideal, but certainly better than nothing. It might be a bit of personal bias on my part, though, because of the similarities between Leviathan and my idea of the Reapers being the products of a vain attempt to achieve immortality/dominance gone horrible wrong.

[Vortex13]

K.I.S.S. This should be the key foundation when trying to explain something like the Reapers. Any convoluted motivation, reasoning, or explanation ruins the mythos of the character.

If a character's motivation, especially a vilian's motivation, can not be summed up in one word then you have failed from a literary standpoint (IMO).