264 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

Ah, this. Well, listening is not betrayel, I agree so far, but I think that Shepard should not consider a deal with the reapers. That is what I meant. Like "So the Illusive Man was right after all..."

Why? That was a great line. Certainly an interesting one.

In ME3, since Shepard has no option to want to control the Reapers during the story, is to kill the Reapers. Thus the goal was to kill Reapers, not to end the cycle and keep the Reapers around because that's never been a bad thing right? So, we get to the end, and then suddenly the enemy A) changes your win goal for you and offers three "solutions" to you.

True, we should have had an option to want to control the Reapers more often... HOWEVER, there is one point in the story where Shepard can express interest, personally, in controlling the Reapers. It's in a piece of dialogue that's almost impossible to find, with Hackett, but it's there.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

I agree with that the primary problem with the ending is a lack of meaningful heroism. But you say Shepard needs to disagree with the Reapers just because they're the Reapers? No. That's just foolish, and it gives your enemy just as much power over you as if you you obeyed their every word. You're just a much a slave if you're compelled to disagree then if you're compelled to agree.

In any case, picking Destroy is disagreeing. It's going against everything the Catalyst says.

Some of my issues is that there is not enough defiance towards the Reapers or the Catalyst. Of denying its problems and stating that the Reapers are the problem. Of how it can't possibly understand organics because of its own nature. 

Basically a refusal speech while shooting the tube.

Execution still sucks and the concept and themes still don't fit the narrative, but it would go a long way to making Destroy more palatable as is.

[Argolas]

David7204 wrote...

Well that's simply too bad. You're going to have to accept that people do terrible things for at least somewhat decent reasons, in real life and in fiction.

I would obviously give the player a choice. But the Reapers are not going to be be totally evil for giggles just because you want them to be.

Wanting to be and stay the one who is in power is a sufficiant motivation for almost everything. Both in real life and in fiction.

[David7204]

No it ain't. If you had wrote that in as writer for that scene, I can guarantee you would be vilified as incompetent and lazy.

[Ticonderoga117]

Xilizhra wrote...
True, we should have had an option to want to control the Reapers more often... HOWEVER, there is one point in the story where Shepard can express interest, personally, in controlling the Reapers. It's in a piece of dialogue that's almost impossible to find, with Hackett, but it's there.

That's hardly a sign of intent compared to... all the other times it comes up. Namely with TIM. Even the talk with TIM at the very end of the game, in a situation where you should be very free to agree with TIM, has Shepard going "Nope. Control doesn't work. Ever." and can even end with TIM killing himself because you convince him he was outright wrong. Blood leaks out of my ears every time I hear "So TIM was right" when the Catalyst says Control is possible because it's so ****ing stupid.

[David7204]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Some of my issues is that there is not enough defiance towards the Reapers or the Catalyst. Of denying its problems and stating that the Reapers are the problem. Of how it can't possibly understand organics because of its own nature. 

Basically a refusal speech while shooting the tube.

Execution still sucks and the concept and themes still don't fit the narrative, but it would go a long way to making Destroy more palatable as is.

I would say that that problems stems a lot more from an unsatisfying motive than from Shepard's actions towards the Catalyst.

Yes, it's clear to us that the Catalyst is probably wrong, since we've come to know EDI and geth.

But what if it wasn't clear? What if the Catalyst had a legitimate point?

[Wolfva2]

Good post Argolas. I think one of the problems with the ending is people see the Catalyst like you described him, as the enemy. He was more...the referee. The Leviathans put together the catalyst which came up with the solution; Reapers. It then released them into the universe and sat back while they did their job. Now that Shep has shown that the Catalysts original solution is no longer valid, a new one has to be made. Still, I kinda wish they had gone a different route.

I liked your thesis on hero. I'm reminded of what the soldiers who fought under LtCol Alan West said of him...that they would follow him through hell carrying jugs of JP5 if he asked. They respected him that much. To steal a quote from someone else whose name escapes me:
"The difference between a manager and a leader is, people do what a manager orders to avoid getting in trouble. They do what a Leader asks out of respect." That respect is earned by a leader who looks after his people. You know he'll do whatever it takes to get you home at the end of the mission. And if he asks you to go on a suicide mission? Like Ashely or Kaidan? Well, you know it's for a damned good reason. He's not trying to get a medal, or combat ribbons. Or a bonus. He's asking because it's damned necessary, and he'd do it himself if he could. There are damned few leaders like that; always have been.

To mangle a quote from Herodotus, "Of 100 men on the field of battle, 80 should not be there. They are fodder. 19 are warriors, and they the battle make. But the 1? Ah the one! He is a Leader, and he will bring them home again." Shepard is the one; from the likes of Socrates, General Washington, Maj. Dick Winters, General Hal Moore. His men would die for him because they know HE would die for THEM.  And in the end, he'll bring them home.

Modifié par Wolfva2, 29 avril 2013 - 02:45 .

[Argolas]

David7204 wrote...

But what if it wasn't clear? What if the Catalyst had a legitimate point?

Doesn't matter because we know it's going to kill or pervert us and everything we care about. That is something we are bound to resist against.

[Ticonderoga117]

David7204 wrote...
I would say that that problems stems a lot more from an unsatisfying motive than from Shepard's actions towards the Catalyst.

Yes, it's clear to us that the Catalyst is probably wrong, since we've come to know EDI and geth.

But what if it wasn't clear? What if the Catalyst had a legitimate point?

The game would then to really, REALLY, provide a reasoning that makes sense and works within the context.

Two major issues with it as it stands is that A) The Reapers aren't proactive in thier policing of the galaxy to curb synthetic issues and The Reapers allow anyone to use the Relays which could make that problem worse.

Basically if it was well written, then sure. But it's not.

[David7204]

So here's a little motive I think could work for the Reapers that I posted a while back in another thread.

The Reapers exist to ensure life continues to struggle. To ensure life always has a goal to reach towards.

The Reapers were the first race. The first race to spread across the galaxy. A race that reached its apex, established perfect societies, conquered disease and mortality, built empires across the galaxy... and then was left to wonder what to do next.

What purpose is there for them? No more conflict, no more mystery. No more stories. Nothing to do or gain or see or create. Just existence. Stagnation, as Mordin put it. They've seen all there is to see and know all there is to know. Heroes can't exist in such a world - there's no need for them, no purpose for them.

Just cold existence. The story is over.

But...as long as there is a cycle, the stories can continue. Forever. The proof is right in front of us, isn't it? We continually seek stories with new enemies to defeat, new partners to romance, new worlds to explore. We want that. The Reapers decided to begin the cycle to allow that to happen, starting with their own civilization. They allow life to always have a journey ahead of it. To always have possibilities and opportunities lying in wait. They don't do it for their own benefit - they do it as caretakers.

So you're Shepard. What do you say to that?

Modifié par David7204, 29 avril 2013 - 02:57 .

[Xilizhra]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
True, we should have had an option to want to control the Reapers more often... HOWEVER, there is one point in the story where Shepard can express interest, personally, in controlling the Reapers. It's in a piece of dialogue that's almost impossible to find, with Hackett, but it's there.

That's hardly a sign of intent compared to... all the other times it comes up. Namely with TIM. Even the talk with TIM at the very end of the game, in a situation where you should be very free to agree with TIM, has Shepard going "Nope. Control doesn't work. Ever." and can even end with TIM killing himself because you convince him he was outright wrong. Blood leaks out of my ears every time I hear "So TIM was right" when the Catalyst says Control is possible because it's so ****ing stupid.

Actually, you don't have to go that way. You just have to convince TIM that he can't control the Reapers because he's already been indoctrinated. You never have to say that control itself is a bad idea at any point within the game.

[AresKeith]

Xilizhra wrote...

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
True, we should have had an option to want to control the Reapers more often... HOWEVER, there is one point in the story where Shepard can express interest, personally, in controlling the Reapers. It's in a piece of dialogue that's almost impossible to find, with Hackett, but it's there.

That's hardly a sign of intent compared to... all the other times it comes up. Namely with TIM. Even the talk with TIM at the very end of the game, in a situation where you should be very free to agree with TIM, has Shepard going "Nope. Control doesn't work. Ever." and can even end with TIM killing himself because you convince him he was outright wrong. Blood leaks out of my ears every time I hear "So TIM was right" when the Catalyst says Control is possible because it's so ****ing stupid.

Actually, you don't have to go that way. You just have to convince TIM that he can't control the Reapers because he's already been indoctrinated. You never have to say that control itself is a bad idea at any point within the game.

So an indoctrinated TIM can't, but a beaten down mentally stressed Shepard can?

[Xilizhra]

AresKeith wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
True, we should have had an option to want to control the Reapers more often... HOWEVER, there is one point in the story where Shepard can express interest, personally, in controlling the Reapers. It's in a piece of dialogue that's almost impossible to find, with Hackett, but it's there.

That's hardly a sign of intent compared to... all the other times it comes up. Namely with TIM. Even the talk with TIM at the very end of the game, in a situation where you should be very free to agree with TIM, has Shepard going "Nope. Control doesn't work. Ever." and can even end with TIM killing himself because you convince him he was outright wrong. Blood leaks out of my ears every time I hear "So TIM was right" when the Catalyst says Control is possible because it's so ****ing stupid.

Actually, you don't have to go that way. You just have to convince TIM that he can't control the Reapers because he's already been indoctrinated. You never have to say that control itself is a bad idea at any point within the game.

So an indoctrinated TIM can't, but a beaten down mentally stressed Shepard can?

Correct.

[The Night Mammoth]

David7204 wrote...

So here's a little motive I think could work for the Reapers that I posted a while back in another thread.

The Reapers exist to ensure life continues to struggle. To ensure life always has a goal to reach towards.

The Reapers were the first race. The first race to spread across the galaxy. A race that reached its apex, established perfect societies, conquered disease and mortality, built empires across the galaxy... and then was left to wonder what to do next.

What purpose is there for them? No more conflict, no more mystery. No more stories. Nothing to do or gain or see or create. Just existence. Stagnation, as Mordin put it. They've seen all there is to see and know all there is to know. Heroes can't exist in such a world - there's no need for them, no purpose for them.

Just cold existence. The story is over.

But...as long as there is a cycle, the stories can continue. Forever. The proof is right in front of us, isn't it? We continually seek stories with new enemies to defeat, new partners to romance, new worlds to explore. We want that. The Reapers decided to begin the cycle to allow that to happen, starting with their own civilization. They allow life to always have a journey ahead of it. To always have possibilities and opportunities lying in wait. They don't do it for their own benefit - they do it as caretakers.

So you're Shepard. What do you say to that?

I like it, and thought of a similar one myself not too long ago, though I suppose it was quite a bit more malevolent. 

Anyway, it sounds disturbing enough for me to have issue with it, as an individual. Questions though. What are the Reapers and why do they make them? Are they still a strange method of preservation? Why do the Reapers guide civilzations down a certain path? Also, why are the Reapers really arrogant and villainous when you speak with them, or does this assume a lot of the game would be different?

[Argolas]

David7204 wrote...

So here's a little motive I think could work for the Reapers that I posted a while back in another thread.

The Reapers exist to ensure life continues to struggle. To ensure life always has a goal to reach towards.

The Reapers were the first race. The first race to spread across the galaxy. A race that reached its apex, established perfect societies, conquered disease and mortality, built empires across the galaxy... and then was left to wonder what to do next.

What purpose is there for them? No more conflict, no more mystery. No more stories. Nothing to do or gain or see or create. Just existence. Stagnation, as Mordin put it. They've seen all there is to see and know all there is to know. Heroes can't exist in such a world - there's no need for them, no purpose for them.

Just cold existence. The story is over.

But...as long as there is a cycle, the stories can continue. Forever. The proof is right in front of us, isn't it? We continually seek stories with new enemies to defeat, new partners to romance, new worlds to explore. We want that. The Reapers decided to begin the cycle to allow that to happen, starting with their own civilization. They allow life to always have a journey ahead of it. To always have possibilities and opportunities lying in wait. They don't do it for their own benefit - they do it as caretakers.

Meh. It doesn't really fit on Sovereign.

"Organic life is nothing but a genetic mutation, an accident."

"We impose order on the chaos of organic life. You exist because we allow it, and you will end because we demand it."

It appears they don't really care about us organics.  And what you just pointed out would rather be the "chaos" they will "impose order" on. Doesn't look like they want us to have possibilities, opportunities and such, they rather limit those and then end us in time.


Also, I don't believe in such an "apex".


EDIT: 

David7204 wrote...

So you're Shepard. What do you say to that?

I tell them to get lost because we can always find meaning in each other.

Modifié par Argolas, 29 avril 2013 - 03:19 .

[AresKeith]

Xilizhra wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
True, we should have had an option to want to control the Reapers more often... HOWEVER, there is one point in the story where Shepard can express interest, personally, in controlling the Reapers. It's in a piece of dialogue that's almost impossible to find, with Hackett, but it's there.

That's hardly a sign of intent compared to... all the other times it comes up. Namely with TIM. Even the talk with TIM at the very end of the game, in a situation where you should be very free to agree with TIM, has Shepard going "Nope. Control doesn't work. Ever." and can even end with TIM killing himself because you convince him he was outright wrong. Blood leaks out of my ears every time I hear "So TIM was right" when the Catalyst says Control is possible because it's so ****ing stupid.

Actually, you don't have to go that way. You just have to convince TIM that he can't control the Reapers because he's already been indoctrinated. You never have to say that control itself is a bad idea at any point within the game.

So an indoctrinated TIM can't, but a beaten down mentally stressed Shepard can?

Correct.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want somebody to have all that power

[Ticonderoga117]

David7204 wrote...

So here's a little motive I think could work for the Reapers that I posted a while back in another thread.

The Reapers exist to ensure life continues to struggle. To ensure life always has a goal to reach towards.

The Reapers were the first race. The first race to spread across the galaxy. A race that reached its apex, established perfect societies, conquered disease and mortality, built empires across the galaxy... and then was left to wonder what to do next.

What purpose is there for them? No more conflict, no more mystery. No more stories. Nothing to do or gain or see or create. Just existence. Stagnation, as Mordin put it. They've seen all there is to see and know all there is to know. Heroes can't exist in such a world - there's no need for them, no purpose for them.

Just cold existence. The story is over.

But...as long as there is a cycle, the stories can continue. Forever. The proof is right in front of us, isn't it? We continually seek stories with new enemies to defeat, new partners to romance, new worlds to explore. We want that. The Reapers decided to begin the cycle to allow that to happen, starting with their own civilization. They allow life to always have a journey ahead of it. To always have possibilities and opportunities lying in wait. They don't do it for their own benefit - they do it as caretakers.

So you're Shepard. What do you say to that?

"Why do you direct galatic civilization and refresh the Galaxy before such a time?"

Same problems here, the past Reaper actions contradict thier motivation.

[The Night Mammoth]

AresKeith wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
True, we should have had an option to want to control the Reapers more often... HOWEVER, there is one point in the story where Shepard can express interest, personally, in controlling the Reapers. It's in a piece of dialogue that's almost impossible to find, with Hackett, but it's there.

That's hardly a sign of intent compared to... all the other times it comes up. Namely with TIM. Even the talk with TIM at the very end of the game, in a situation where you should be very free to agree with TIM, has Shepard going "Nope. Control doesn't work. Ever." and can even end with TIM killing himself because you convince him he was outright wrong. Blood leaks out of my ears every time I hear "So TIM was right" when the Catalyst says Control is possible because it's so ****ing stupid.

Actually, you don't have to go that way. You just have to convince TIM that he can't control the Reapers because he's already been indoctrinated. You never have to say that control itself is a bad idea at any point within the game.

So an indoctrinated TIM can't, but a beaten down mentally stressed Shepard can?

Correct.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want somebody to have all that power

I didn't see any dialogue options saying Control was a bad idea.

What I did see though was lots of killing Cerberus, stopping Cerberus, arguing with the Illusive Man, killing the Illusive Man, and a few arguments that forced control and too much power in an individual's hands are bad things.

The exact words possibly aren't said, though I don't recall every line of dialogue, but there's nothing in the way of support for Control, and at least a hostile tone and direct opposition to the idea in other forms. 

It seems a little grasping-at-straws-y to me. 

[KENNY4753]

so great post OP. I agree with pretty much everything you said. A 10/10 and 5 stars for you.

so about the control not ever being able to be considered by us in the game discussion...the worst part about this is that we are pretty much taking a ****** on Anderson's corpse.

I have said for the longest time that for control to even be a worthy option (I would still never pick it) would be if we were able to side with TIM and work with Cerberus in ME3. At the beginning (like maybe on Mars) we should have had the option to choose between the Alliance and Cerberus. But nope Cerberus had to become an automatic enemy.

Synthesis on the other hand should have never been even considered to be an option. Maybe if Saren would have never been able to die however it could have added a 3rd party to go along with the Alliace/Cerberus choice I mentioned.

Okay so I think I rambled a little so back to the OP. Shepards leadership has always been his/hers biggest strength. It is what made him/her a hero. The Suicide Mission is the biggest example of this. One bad call and somebody dies. Too many bad calls and Shep dies. Coming out with no one left behind is the ultimate prize of great leadership and great judgement calls.

[Ticonderoga117]

Xilizhra wrote...
Actually, you don't have to go that way. You just have to convince TIM that he can't control the Reapers because he's already been indoctrinated. You never have to say that control itself is a bad idea at any point within the game.

And since Shepard is obviously having issues at the end (being restricted and all) I wouldn't really consider him the best candidate either.

[David7204]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

David7204 wrote...

So here's a little motive I think could work for the Reapers that I posted a while back in another thread.

The Reapers exist to ensure life continues to struggle. To ensure life always has a goal to reach towards.

The Reapers were the first race. The first race to spread across the galaxy. A race that reached its apex, established perfect societies, conquered disease and mortality, built empires across the galaxy... and then was left to wonder what to do next.

What purpose is there for them? No more conflict, no more mystery. No more stories. Nothing to do or gain or see or create. Just existence. Stagnation, as Mordin put it. They've seen all there is to see and know all there is to know. Heroes can't exist in such a world - there's no need for them, no purpose for them.

Just cold existence. The story is over.

But...as long as there is a cycle, the stories can continue. Forever. The proof is right in front of us, isn't it? We continually seek stories with new enemies to defeat, new partners to romance, new worlds to explore. We want that. The Reapers decided to begin the cycle to allow that to happen, starting with their own civilization. They allow life to always have a journey ahead of it. To always have possibilities and opportunities lying in wait. They don't do it for their own benefit - they do it as caretakers.

So you're Shepard. What do you say to that?

I like it, and thought of a similar one myself not too long ago, though I suppose it was quite a bit more malevolent. 

Anyway, it sounds disturbing enough for me to have issue with it, as an individual. Questions though. What are the Reapers and why do they make them? Are they still a strange method of preservation? Why do the Reapers guide civilzations down a certain path? Also, why are the Reapers really arrogant and villainous when you speak with them, or does this assume a lot of the game would be different?

Excellent questions.

As for what the Reapers themselves are...I think I might like to leave it ambiguous. The way I see it, as technology adavances, the lines between synthetics and organics blur and eventually disappear. So leave the player guessing if they're machines built by a race to do bidding, if they're super-evolved synthetics or organics, if they're shells that organics 'dumped' their brains into.

Strange methods of preservation? Nope. That all gets scrapped. No melting humans into goo, no building Reapers out of life, none of that. I never liked any of it. It would require some tweaks to the plot of ME 2, but that could be done.

Why do the Reapers lead organics down a certain path? Well, this is pretty much the same thing Legion says in ME 2.  The Reapers give the Relays to organics because it ensures they will be used. It ensures that organic technology will develop along predictable paths. Without relays, there's a much greater chance organics will develop technology the Reapers don't anticipate, technology the Reapers don't know how to counter. And it also allows the Reapers to take that technology away when they invade, and deprive organics of something they've been grown dependant on.

As for the Reapers contempt towards organics...hmm...that might be a little tricky. I do like the Reapers being nice and evil. I think the best answer would just be to say the Reapers were 'hardened' to do their job without remorse. Maybe leave it ambiguous if the 'hardening' was voluntary or not.

Modifié par David7204, 29 avril 2013 - 03:33 .

[David7204]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

"Why do you direct galatic civilization and refresh the Galaxy before such a time?"

Same problems here, the past Reaper actions contradict thier motivation.

Okay, what? 

You need to rephrase the questions. What do you mean by "refresh the Galaxy before such a time?" What "time?"

Modifié par David7204, 29 avril 2013 - 03:34 .

[David7204]

Argolas wrote...

I tell them to get lost because we can always find meaning in each other.

That's actually fairly close to what I think Shepard could say to defy them.

[AresKeith]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

I didn't see any dialogue options saying Control was a bad idea.

What I did see though was lots of killing Cerberus, stopping Cerberus, arguing with the Illusive Man, killing the Illusive Man, and a few arguments that forced control and too much power in an individual's hands are bad things.

The exact words possibly aren't said, though I don't recall every line of dialogue, but there's nothing in the way of support for Control, and at least a hostile tone and direct opposition to the idea in other forms. 

It seems a little grasping-at-straws-y to me. 

There really hasn't been any support for Control in ME3

[Ticonderoga117]

David7204 wrote...

Okay, what? 

You need to rephrase the questions. What do you mean by "refresh the Galaxy before such a time?" What "time?"

Ok, we know from ME1 that the Reapers direct the formation of galactic civilizations. Why do that if the Reapers want progression?

And then, why do they kill off society before stagnation occurs? Humanity in ME3 is hardly at it's peak and there's a lot more to explore and advance upon. So why wipe that all out before it's max potential is reached?