264 réponses à ce sujet

[AresKeith]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

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?

My theory was that at the max potential that would be a great threat to the Reapers

[David7204]

The answer to both questions is that to limit the power of organics.

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. You want your enemies to be predictable. And it also allows the Reapers to take that technology away when they invade, and deprive organics of something they've been grown dependent on.

As for the second question, it's necessity. They have to. They Reapers allow civilization to continue as long as they can, but if they wait too long, the civilization will eventually match and maybe even surpass them. They end the civilizations when they do simply because if they didn't, organics would be too powerful.

Modifié par David7204, 29 avril 2013 - 03:42 .

[The Night Mammoth]

David7204 wrote...

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.

I would have thought, now this is speculation on my part and not an attempt to argue the point, that the Reapers are the end stagnated product of their own development. Perhaps their need or yearning for advancement brought them to this. Interesting regardless. 

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.

Three cheers. Never really pinned down what the Collectors would be doing instead. The best idea I've ever come up with is that, instead of just harvesting human colonies, they're harvesting sentient organics from the Terminus and Traverse in general, using them to run experiments, and making them into husks to serve as the Reaper's vanguard. 

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.

That's what I thought, and is one of the reasons I'd find it suitably disagreeable. It's a hypocritical form of control as well as freedom.

Well, that and they kill people.

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.

Initially, I thought the Reapers perhaps believe that they're song is the greatest ever sung, and that, first, they're doing organics a favor by making sure they never reached the stagnation the Reapers reached and are so arrogant, and second, they think organics should be grateful for the chance they were given and should happily allow it to others. Just some thoughts though, I can well imagine the endless process would have made them a bit loopy and bitter.

[Ticonderoga117]

David7204 wrote...

The answer to both questions is that to limit the power of organics.

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. You want your enemies to be predictable. And it also allows the Reapers to take that technology away when they invade, and deprive organics of something they've been grown dependent on.

As for the second question, it's necessity. They have to. They Reapers allow civilization to continue as long as they can, but if they wait too long, the civilization will eventually match and maybe even surpass them. They end the civilizations when they do simply because if they didn't, organics would be too powerful.

But that's contradictory!

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.

They stagnate because it's the same story again and again. There are no more mysteries because the same damn things are done in every damn cycle because the Reapers make it so.

The Reapers are then ouright lying about why they want the cycle to continue.

[Ticonderoga117]

AresKeith wrote...
My theory was that at the max potential that would be a great threat to the Reapers

That would work but doesn't jive with the stories we get from the Reapers or this new background.

[goose2989]

A lack of heroism is a big problem of ME3's ending, and you summarize it very well.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

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 say they destroy other races and other species for a reason that really ultimately constitutes boredom. At least, that's how I'm seeing it. I destroy them for perpetuating a cycle of existence that goes around that. Life is more than just adventure and narrative. 

It sounds like the Reapers biggest failure is that they haven't made their own reason for existence. That's one of my big beliefs. You don't find a way, a philosophy, a style. You make your own, you create a reason to exist. That said, it sounds like the reason can be paraphrased as "Hey, Reaper bro, I'm bored. Want to get drunk and knock over that midgets house and eat the midget? It'll be fun!"

My reason behnd the Reapers: I rewrite the motivation of the Reapers. They're a race of organic machine hybrids that have a tremendous ego (stipulated by the arrogance of Leviathan) in their own machine perfection and order, and this mandates them to eradicate the impurity of all lesser beings. The Reapers take "pity" on some of the lesser beings and forcibly "ascend" those races to their level of existence as a new Reaper, thus creating new Reapers. 


http://social.biowar...5814/3#16609712

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 29 avril 2013 - 04:29 .

[Brovikk Rasputin]

The ending is excellent though.

[Steelcan]

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

The ending is excellent though.

.  And the Phantom Menace was an incrrdible film that carried on the Star Wars banner

[Ticonderoga117]

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

The ending is excellent though.

So the inconsistencies, shift of tone and overall bad writing is... just not a part of the judgement?

[AresKeith]

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

The ending is excellent though.

"and my circular logic is undeniable"

[shit's fucked cunts]

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

The ending is excellent though.

This is just as destructive as the people who spend five words saying it's bad.

You are your own worst enemy.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

The ending is excellent though.

To you. 

I think it's bad. Very bad. Game breaking bad. Nearly franchise ruining bad.

It's not objective fact. 

All I've ever seen of an anti-anti-ending argument from you is "It's excellent" with some kind of ad hominem.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 29 avril 2013 - 05:01 .

[cljqnsnyc]

OP...Very good point!

Shep and crew shouldn't need an option offered up by the enemy to defeat the enemy. It runs contrary to Shep's purpose: Destroy the Reapers, not on THEIR terms, but ours. This is the same as telling TIM he doesn't need the Collector Base to defeat the enemy..no assistance , no help from the enemies tools. But in the end, he takes an option offered up by the enemy?

Sorry. Doesn't work. It contradicts practically everything Shep stands for. Afterall, did he go to the Citadel to strike a deal or even listen to one? No. He doesn't trust the Reapers. Yet he bargains with their master? Again, sorry...doesn't work. My solution: 86 the Catalyst. The Refuse ending is even worse. Everybody goes.

For this reason and many others, I use MEHEM. Glad we have it but shame it had to be created in the first place.

[Auld Wulf]

I don't like the way the OP pushes his limited perception of the ending as fact, and that he has to tell us why it is so. It can't possibly be that the ending is good, and that he's simply too bitter to see it as any other way than the distorted perceptions he has of it. I've seen Argolas post, and it's angry, bitter stuff. This just comes over as a pseudo-intellectual Hulk, slamming his fists around in blind anger whilst screaming ten dollar words. Ultimately it signifies nothing, and he's hoping he'll hit on something that'll actually destroy the foundations of that which he hates so much. But it's still just blind flailing at the end of the day.

The ending, ultimately, is fine. Or the ending is rather fantastic, if you prefer. I suppose you can be angry and bitter at a videogame because it ruined your life (and you have to spend a year posting about how it ruined your life on the BSN), but that doesn't actually mean that the ending is bad. All it means is that someone is a seethingly angry little troll. I've met many of those on this forum, who have to resort to character assassination and even name-calling just because you don't want to be a part of their herd.

But that herd/mob mentality eschews intellectuality in favour of brute force. Scream all you want, but you're not actually going to change the opinion of anyone who actually thinks the ending is good. And if the ending really ruined your life to the point where you have to spend a year on a forum telling us why it ruined your life, then you might want to seek help.

TL;DR: Let it go.

[Ticonderoga117]

Auld Wulf wrote...

I don't like the way the OP pushes his limited perception of the ending as fact, and that he has to tell us why it is so. It can't possibly be that the ending is good, and that he's simply too bitter to see it as any other way than the distorted perceptions he has of it. I've seen Argolas post, and it's angry, bitter stuff. This just comes over as a pseudo-intellectual Hulk, slamming his fists around in blind anger whilst screaming ten dollar words. Ultimately it signifies nothing, and he's hoping he'll hit on something that'll actually destroy the foundations of that which he hates so much. But it's still just blind flailing at the end of the day.

The ending, ultimately, is fine. Or the ending is rather fantastic, if you prefer. I suppose you can be angry and bitter at a videogame because it ruined your life (and you have to spend a year posting about how it ruined your life on the BSN), but that doesn't actually mean that the ending is bad. All it means is that someone is a seethingly angry little troll. I've met many of those on this forum, who have to resort to character assassination and even name-calling just because you don't want to be a part of their herd.

But that herd/mob mentality eschews intellectuality in favour of brute force. Scream all you want, but you're not actually going to change the opinion of anyone who actually thinks the ending is good. And if the ending really ruined your life to the point where you have to spend a year on a forum telling us why it ruined your life, then you might want to seek help.

TL;DR: Let it go.

It's funny how you sling around the idea of the OP being a "pseudo-intellectual Hulk, slamming his fists around in blind anger whilst screaming ten dollar words" while you do the exact same thing.

There are major issues with the ending, and you are too blind to see them.

[MegaSovereign]

@tickle

If a picture is worth a thousand words then a gif is worth a thousand pictures.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Auld Wulf wrote...

I don't like the way the OP pushes his limited perception of the ending as fact, and that he has to tell us why it is so. It can't possibly be that the ending is good, and that he's simply too bitter to see it as any other way than the distorted perceptions he has of it. I've seen Argolas post, and it's angry, bitter stuff. This just comes over as a pseudo-intellectual Hulk, slamming his fists around in blind anger whilst screaming ten dollar words. Ultimately it signifies nothing, and he's hoping he'll hit on something that'll actually destroy the foundations of that which he hates so much. But it's still just blind flailing at the end of the day.

The ending, ultimately, is fine. Or the ending is rather fantastic, if you prefer. I suppose you can be angry and bitter at a videogame because it ruined your life (and you have to spend a year posting about how it ruined your life on the BSN), but that doesn't actually mean that the ending is bad. All it means is that someone is a seethingly angry little troll. I've met many of those on this forum, who have to resort to character assassination and even name-calling just because you don't want to be a part of their herd.

But that herd/mob mentality eschews intellectuality in favour of brute force. Scream all you want, but you're not actually going to change the opinion of anyone who actually thinks the ending is good. And if the ending really ruined your life to the point where you have to spend a year on a forum telling us why it ruined your life, then you might want to seek help.

TL;DR: Let it go.

No argument against the idea, yet full of ad hominems.

If so many people failed to understand BW's vision, isn't that the fault of BW? I'm a smart, perfectly understanding and reasonable person. I certainly don't like the ending. I hate it in fact. Am I an indignant fool who doesn't understand? Or is it limited to your perceptions of the ending? 

[KaiserShep]

Auld Wulf wrote...

I don't like the way the OP pushes his limited perception of the ending as fact, and that he has to tell us why it is so. It can't possibly be that the ending is good, and that he's simply too bitter to see it as any other way than the distorted perceptions he has of it. I've seen Argolas post, and it's angry, bitter stuff. This just comes over as a pseudo-intellectual Hulk, slamming his fists around in blind anger whilst screaming ten dollar words. Ultimately it signifies nothing, and he's hoping he'll hit on something that'll actually destroy the foundations of that which he hates so much. But it's still just blind flailing at the end of the day.

The ending, ultimately, is fine. Or the ending is rather fantastic, if you prefer. I suppose you can be angry and bitter at a videogame because it ruined your life (and you have to spend a year posting about how it ruined your life on the BSN), but that doesn't actually mean that the ending is bad. All it means is that someone is a seethingly angry little troll. I've met many of those on this forum, who have to resort to character assassination and even name-calling just because you don't want to be a part of their herd.

But that herd/mob mentality eschews intellectuality in favour of brute force. Scream all you want, but you're not actually going to change the opinion of anyone who actually thinks the ending is good. And if the ending really ruined your life to the point where you have to spend a year on a forum telling us why it ruined your life, then you might want to seek help.

TL;DR: Let it go.

An ending toa piece of fiction can be objectively bad. Furthermore, all perceptions, by virtue of being those of just one person, are limited. As one who actually enjoys most of the game, the OP is actually right. Just look at the simple mechanics of ME2's ending and compare how it runs with ME3's. If you like your ending, fine. Heck I didn't hesitate to pick destroy, but there's a reason why BW had to slap together a freebie DLC for the ending. This  wasn't just some bonus add-on they doled out for fun; it was an attempt to patch up the exceptionally faulty logistics of the final sequence. Also, this kind of feedback is important. If not for outlets for users to voice their complaints, fixes, or at least attempts at fixes, would never be made.

[Asharad Hett]

Welcome to the lose-lose-lose-lose situation that is ME3

Modifié par Asharad Hett, 29 avril 2013 - 07:35 .

[Astartes Marine]

Auld Wulf wrote...
I don't like the way the OP pushes his limited perception of the ending as fact, and that he has to tell us why it is so.

You're guilty of the same thing.

Auld Wulf wrote...
It can't possibly be that the ending is good, and that he's simply too bitter to see it as any other way than the distorted perceptions he has of it. I've seen Argolas post, and it's angry, bitter stuff.

Have you taken a step back and read your own posts?  You are almost always condescending and insulting to other people. 

Auld Wulf wrote...
This just comes over as a pseudo-intellectual Hulk, slamming his fists around in blind anger whilst screaming ten dollar words.  Ultimately it signifies nothing, and he's hoping he'll hit on something that'll actually destroy the foundations of that which he hates so much.  But it's still just blind flailing at the end of the day.

Hey look at that, I was just writing about how you can be a condescending and contemptuous jackass.

Auld Wulf wrote...
The ending, ultimately, is fine. Or the ending is rather fantastic, if you prefer.

That is your opinion.

Auld Wulf wrote...
I suppose you can be angry and bitter at a videogame because it ruined your life (and you have to spend a year posting about how it ruined your life on the BSN), but that doesn't actually mean that the ending is bad. All it means is that someone is a seethingly angry little troll. I've met many of those on this forum, who have to resort to
character assassination and even name-calling just because you don't want to be a part of their herd.

Once again condescending and insulting.  You've done it quite alot to those who don't share your vision of a green utopia.

Auld Wulf wrote...
then you might want to seek help.

You are one to talk, calling the BSN a pit of sociopaths because people decided your beloved Reapers had to be destroyed.  <_<

Modifié par Astartes Marine, 29 avril 2013 - 08:25 .

[Dubozz]

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

The ending is excellent though.

No it's not.

[Wayning_Star]

no hero can last so many billions of years.. so the OP is frustrated. Besides, the hero gig is a form of indoctrination, a myth of sorts. Doesn't mean you cannot be one, it's just that trying to is not the best way of doin it.  It wasn't intended to wipe out the hero worship in the game, it was the exposure of the illusive nature of 'being' that requires it/heroism. Those who think they're a HERO usually are not one, but a wanna bee..lol
i.e. straight life.
(kind of makes the OP seem like a troll post, or flameous baitius... as in, Wile E. Coyote

Modifié par Wayning_Star, 29 avril 2013 - 08:43 .

[PsyrenY]

Argolas wrote...

We are offered to strike a deal with the Reapers- and Shepard listens and considers it.

Must this falsehood continue to be perpetrated?

Synthesis and Control are not "deals." They are not compromises. They have inherent value, both for the state of the galaxy at that immediate moment, and for its long-term future.