1470 réponses à ce sujet

[dreamgazer]

remydat wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Nope.  I am proposing that they should have done what MEHEM did.  Cut out the starkid as an author's avatar entirely.  It doesn't work.

-Polaris

And how would you propose Shep find out the motives of the Reapers?  MEHEM does nothing to explain the Reaper's motives which is fine if you don't care but I do.

Not a fan of ending the series with a MEHEM situation, but I really would've preferred that they leave the Reapers' motives open to interpretation---largely because I dug my contemplations about why they suppressed civilization, and who was in the pilot's seat, more than what was presented.  

I had nothing concrete, only vague notions about civilization's overgrowth, loss of control over technology, and a grand design.  And I liked it like that; it was enough for a series such as this.

[IanPolaris]

dreamgazer wrote...

remydat wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Nope.  I am proposing that they should have done what MEHEM did.  Cut out the starkid as an author's avatar entirely.  It doesn't work.

-Polaris

And how would you propose Shep find out the motives of the Reapers?  MEHEM does nothing to explain the Reaper's motives which is fine if you don't care but I do.

Not a fan of ending the series with a MEHEM situation, but I really would've preferred that they leave the Reapers' motives open to interpretation---largely because I dug my contemplations about why they suppressed civilization, and who was in the pilot's seat, more than what was presented.  

I had nothing concrete, only vague notions about civilization's overgrowth, loss of control over technology, and a grand design.  And I liked it like that; it was enough for a series such as this.

Exactly which is what I meant by the term "Space Cthulus"  Cthulu isn't meant to be understood (and can't be without going insane).  Just feared....and an ultimate evil that must be defeated....or at least checked.  Sovereigns own words on Virmire confirm this.

-Polaris

[remydat]

IanPolaris wrote...

I don't see anyone stopping you....

Deal with it.  In ME1, the Reapers were explicitly introduced as Space Cthulus.

-Polaris

You are telling me my comments are not constructive and thus in a way trying to silence me by doing so. 

And after ME1, I wanted to know why they wanted to kill us.  Deal with it. 

[BaladasDemnevanni]

remydat wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Who cares what the Reaper's motive's are?  "You exist because we allow it, and you will end because we demand it."

That's all we really have to know.  It's them or us.  It's just like DAO.  We really don't need to know the motivations of the Archdemon to know we have to stop it.

-Polaris

I just told you I do.  Am I not suppose to care just because you don't?

Personally, I do care. But there's a certain amount of give or take here. If Bioware can produce a great motive for the Reapers, go for it. But as written, I find the Catalyst's tech singularity to be extremely lacking. In this case, I think I was much better off with the Reapers as mysterious.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 13 mai 2013 - 03:35 .

[remydat]

dreamgazer wrote...

Not a fan of ending the series with a MEHEM situation, but I really would've preferred that they leave the Reapers' motives open to interpretation---largely because I dug my contemplations about why they suppressed civilization, and who was in the pilot's seat, more than what was presented.  

I had nothing concrete, only vague notions about civilization's overgrowth, loss of control over technology, and a grand design.  And I liked it like that; it was enough for a series such as this.

I really would have preferred the game ended without us defeating the Reapers because I dug my contemplations on all the possible ways to kill them.

Point is people are free to have their preferred ending or opinion but that has nothing to do with whether the ending given was good or bad.  To each his/her own.

[IanPolaris]

remydat wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

I don't see anyone stopping you....

Deal with it.  In ME1, the Reapers were explicitly introduced as Space Cthulus.

-Polaris

You are telling me my comments are not constructive and thus in a way trying to silence me by doing so. 

And after ME1, I wanted to know why they wanted to kill us.  Deal with it. 

That's nice.  What I am saying on a broad narrative and literary basis (see Lovecraftian Horror), given the way the Reapers were introduced, there was no reasonable expectation to get more information about the Reaper's motives (except *maybe* in so far as to how to predict and stop them).  It wasn't really needed and it wasn't an important part of the narrative directly after ME1.  Heck even at the end of ME2 it wasn't really important other than the Reapers had humans specifically in their targets for some reason.

So whether you wanted it or not is beside the point (the point being what would have made the series, plot, and endings work).

-Polaris

[drayfish]

remydat wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

All the data that's been taken to this point by independant polling suggests that I am in fact in the majority.  Bioware denied this of course, but when asked to produce their own data saying otherwise, they refused.  That's their right and it's understandable, but the data to date (as flawed as it may be) tends to back me.

-Polaris

Or it suggests that haters are more vocal.  I am a stats guy and polls about likes and dislikes are always problematic because the haters tend to like to express their dislike for something more than the people that like it like to express themselves.  The data on sales backs up the fact the game is a success which sure it may be because MP.

However, we are both operating on flawed data which again goes back to my point.  Prove it by not buying ME4.  That is your only real viable solution.

But a 'stats' and 'polls' guy like you will then no doubt point out - no matter how ME4 sells - that it is impossible to discern who is or is not buying ME4 for any number of reasons.  Maybe the advertising isn't so convincing next time; maybe it has more multiplayer components; maybe there are more pre-order bonuses; maybe the fact that it isn't part of a trilogy will count against it; on and on...

You are knowingly punting the onus of 'evidence' onto a vague insubstantial future tense that you can likewise dismiss at will, one that is again based upon the vague promises that can influence sales and never be ultimately verified.

What can be judged at present is one of the largest, most vocal outcries against a piece of entertainment ever seen.  A reaction so expansive that whatever data Bioware has access to (and still refuses to release) led them to spend millions of dollars on a free download to try and soften the blowback.

Companies proud of their work and satisfied with its reception do not flush away profit and manpower in such a manner to satisfy some loudmouthed minority.

Commentary and polls (outside of the original review scores of the game) have repeatedly indicated that the ending is still not widely considered satisfactory  - and again, if Bioware had the evidence to suggest otherwise, it would only help their case to offer some proof.

[remydat]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Personally, I do care. But there's a certain amount of give or take here. If Bioware can produce a great motive for the Reapers, go for it. But as written, I find the Catalyst's tech singularity to be extremely lacking. In this case, I think I was much better off with the Reapers as mysterious.

I used to be more sympathetic to this view until I visited these boards and saw how many people defended the Quarians trying to kill the Geth before the MW not because of what they did but because of what they imagined they would do simply because they were machines.

[remydat]

IanPolaris wrote...

That's nice.  What I am saying on a broad narrative and literary basis (see Lovecraftian Horror), given the way the Reapers were introduced, there was no reasonable expectation to get more information about the Reaper's motives (except *maybe* in so far as to how to predict and stop them).  It wasn't really needed and it wasn't an important part of the narrative directly after ME1.  Heck even at the end of ME2 it wasn't really important other than the Reapers had humans specifically in their targets for some reason.

So whether you wanted it or not is beside the point (the point being what would have made the series, plot, and endings work).

-Polaris

And what I am saying is what you think is relevant on a broad narrative and literary basis is opinion and not fact.

[Mathias]

Been reading bits and pieces of this thread. Well first of all, even though they missed the main point of the whole thing, at least they sort've admitted that they messed up with the ending, even if they didn't say that outright.

Secondly, anyone who still believes that people who disliked the ending were a minority are delusional fools. Yes "technically" we were a vocal minority, but that doesn't mean we were a minority. It just means out of the many who thought the ending was crap, there were some that were angry enough to speak up about it. Just because someone doesn't speak up, doesn't mean they liked it. Get real.

[Megaton_Hope]

I prefer the Reapers mysterious. Trying to reach for what a superior intelligence that has lived continuously for millions of years would WANT or NEED is biting off a little more than most people can chew. Lovecraft is kind of a difficult example, because his creatures are so alien that anything they want or need might not even mean anything to us. However, that their motives are unknown and cannot be known is the most successful element of the Mythos.

[remydat]

drayfish wrote...

But a 'stats' and 'polls' guy like you will then no doubt point out - no matter how ME4 sells - that it is impossible to discern who is or is not buying ME4 for any number of reasons.  Maybe the advertising isn't so convincing next time; maybe it has more multiplayer components; maybe there are more pre-order bonuses; maybe the fact that it isn't part of a trilogy will count against it; on and on...

You are knowingly punting the onus of 'evidence' onto a vague insubstantial future tense that you can likewise dismiss at will, one that is again based upon the vague promises that can influence sales and never be ultimately verified.

What can be judged at present is one of the largest, most vocal outcries against a piece of entertainment ever seen.  A reaction so expansive that whatever data Bioware has access to (and still refuses to release) led them to spend millions of dollars on a free download to try and soften the blowback.

Companies proud of their work and satisfied with its reception do not flush away profit and manpower in such a manner to satisfy some loudmouthed minority.

Commentary and polls (outside of the original review scores of the game) have repeatedly indicated that the ending is still not widely considered satisfactory  - and again, if Bioware had the evidence to suggest otherwise, it would only help their case to offer some proof.

No I will go on record that if ME4 tanks then I will consider it tanked because of the fall out of ME3.  You can keep this post saved and remind me of it if that day comes.

Bioware threw their fans a bone and then sold them the Citadel DLC off the back of it.  The EC was simply advertising dollars spent via a free DLC as opposed to say TV ads.

In fact I know of 3 people who bought the game solely because of the outcry and they wanted to see what the fuss was about.

[IanPolaris]

remydat wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

That's nice.  What I am saying on a broad narrative and literary basis (see Lovecraftian Horror), given the way the Reapers were introduced, there was no reasonable expectation to get more information about the Reaper's motives (except *maybe* in so far as to how to predict and stop them).  It wasn't really needed and it wasn't an important part of the narrative directly after ME1.  Heck even at the end of ME2 it wasn't really important other than the Reapers had humans specifically in their targets for some reason.

So whether you wanted it or not is beside the point (the point being what would have made the series, plot, and endings work).

-Polaris

And what I am saying is what you think is relevant on a broad narrative and literary basis is opinion and not fact.

My opinions are my own, but I can draw (and so can pretty much anyone aquainted with English Composition) the direct parallels between how the Reapers were presented and how Cthulu and the Lovecraftian horrors were introduced.  Not only that but the game itself (at least ME1) reinforces this parallel multiple times.

By doing so, you no longer have to talk about (or even discuss) Reaper motives because they are not a true antagonist at this point (and that's certainly true in ME1 and ME2....and really for 95% of ME3), but rather malign forces of nature that have to be dealt with (called Maltheism). 

The fact that Bioware chose to define Reaper motives was their perrogative of course, but it wasn't needed and it wasn't a good idea.  As others have said, if Bioware was going to do that, then what replaced the Lovecraftian Horror reason needed to be better (as in more compelling) and folded into the ongoing story in such a way to draw the player in....and this never happened.

I note by literary contrast that the endings for ME3 and Deus Ex, HR are virtually identical, yet D-HR draws praise while ME3 is panned.  Why?  Because the entire game of Deus Ex clearly involved the player in such a way that these choices made perfect sense (regardess of which one you ultimately chose).

-Polaris

[dreamgazer]

There's also a difference between those who disliked the ending and those who don't care enough to be phased either way. Not apathy, just ... lenient.

I believe those who liked the ending and those who disliked the ending are both in the minority. The majority is those who were fine, meh, and tolerant with it, enough that it warranted a patch-up job instead of a complete overhaul.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

dreamgazer wrote...

There's also a difference between those who disliked the ending and those who don't care enough to be phased either way. Not apathy, just ... lenient.

I believe those who liked the ending and those who disliked the ending are both in the minority. The majority is those who were fine, meh, and tolerant with it, enough that it warranted a patch-up job instead of a complete overhaul.

More or less this. The majority of people who played weren't invested to really give a big hoot in hell.

[remydat]

IanPolaris wrote...

My opinions are my own, but I can draw (and so can pretty much anyone aquainted with English Composition) the direct parallels between how the Reapers were presented and how Cthulu and the Lovecraftian horrors were introduced.  Not only that but the game itself (at least ME1) reinforces this parallel multiple times.

By doing so, you no longer have to talk about (or even discuss) Reaper motives because they are not a true antagonist at this point (and that's certainly true in ME1 and ME2....and really for 95% of ME3), but rather malign forces of nature that have to be dealt with (called Maltheism). 

The fact that Bioware chose to define Reaper motives was their perrogative of course, but it wasn't needed and it wasn't a good idea.  As others have said, if Bioware was going to do that, then what replaced the Lovecraftian Horror reason needed to be better (as in more compelling) and folded into the ongoing story in such a way to draw the player in....and this never happened.

I note by literary contrast that the endings for ME3 and Deus Ex, HR are virtually identical, yet D-HR draws praise while ME3 is panned.  Why?  Because the entire game of Deus Ex clearly involved the player in such a way that these choices made perfect sense (regardess of which one you ultimately chose).

-Polaris

But again, whether it is more compelling is a matter of opinion.  You are requiring that just because a writer uses elements of Lovecraft, he must use all the elements.  There is a difference between being influenced by Lovecraft and basically cutting and pasting the Cthulhu Mythos in its entirety and inserting it in your story.

I don't subscribe to Lovecraft's idea of cosmic indifference as I find it basically a lazy way of saying well I can't be bothered to attempt to give my creation a reason that makes sense so I will just say it has no reason. There is a difference between a tornado and a sentient entity.  If you tell me something is sentient then you better give it a reason for doing what it does.  If I want a story in which the antagonist has no reason for what it does then I will watch Twister.

So for me, giving the Reapers a motive was paramount to my enjoying the story.  It's a fictional story.  If you can't be bothered to come up with a reason your main antagonist is doing something then keep your story to yourself and don't waste my f**king time, lol.  And that of course is just my opinion.

Modifié par remydat, 13 mai 2013 - 04:12 .

[IanPolaris]

remydat wrote...

But again, whether it is more compelling is a matter of opinion.  You are requiring that just because a writer uses elements of Lovecraft, he must use all the elements.  There is a difference between being influenced by Lovecraft and basically cutting and pasting the Cthulhu Mythos in its entirety and inserting it in your story.

I am not requiring that Bioware use all the elements.  I am merely saying that if you are going to do something differently [than Lovecraft] in this case, it should be something better, and it wasn't.  Opinions aside, it's clear that the Lovecraftian Model works.  Since the Reapers (at least in ME1 and much of ME2) followed the Lovecraftian Model, there was no narrative or structural reason to give the Reapers specific motives.  That's all I'm saying.

-Polaris

[Only-Twin]

I agree with Everman. It's easier to have a bitter-sweet ending in a 2-hour movie than a long series. Even though ME3 was really disappointing, it looks like the developers (I hope) learned a lot from it.

Imagine if series like Star Wars or Harry Potter had bitter-sweet endings.

[remydat]

IanPolaris wrote...

I am not requiring that Bioware use all the elements.  I am merely saying that if you are going to do something differently [than Lovecraft] in this case, it should be something better, and it wasn't.  Opinions aside, it's clear that the Lovecraftian Model works.  Since the Reapers (at least in ME1 and much of ME2) followed the Lovecraftian Model, there was no narrative or structural reason to give the Reapers specific motives.  That's all I'm saying.

-Polaris

But the minute you say that it should be better you are making a requirement.  Better is subjective.  I found the reason better by the mere fact it was a reason. The Reapers are sentient so they need a motive in my book.  They are thinking beings so from a structural or narrative perspective, a thinking being should have a reason IMO.  Othewise, again, I might as well watch Twister.

Modifié par remydat, 13 mai 2013 - 04:18 .

[IanPolaris]

remydat wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

I am not requiring that Bioware use all the elements.  I am merely saying that if you are going to do something differently [than Lovecraft] in this case, it should be something better, and it wasn't.  Opinions aside, it's clear that the Lovecraftian Model works.  Since the Reapers (at least in ME1 and much of ME2) followed the Lovecraftian Model, there was no narrative or structural reason to give the Reapers specific motives.  That's all I'm saying.

-Polaris

But the minute you say that it should be better you are making a requirement.  Better is subjective.  I found the reason better by the mere fact it was a reason. The Reapers are sentient so they need a motive in my book.  They are thinking beings so from a structural or narrative perspective, a thinking being should have a reason IMO.  Othewise, again, I might as well watch Twister.

The reapers do have a motive.  However, given the vast differences of scale between them and all other sentient life, there is no reason why any of us could or should be able to comprehend it.  Legion says as much when describing Nazara in ME2.

-Polaris

Edit:  I also think "better" can be judged relatively objectively.  The Reapers were introduced very much like Cthulu-like horrors.  That meant it wasn't required to explain their motives.  Therefore if you did it should be done within the ongoing context of the entire series (and it's not), and it should add more to the narrative of the story than it takes away (and it doesn't).  If it did, then you wouldn't have had this reaction against the original endings (which really were the same as the EC minus the exposition and Galactic Dark Age).

Modifié par IanPolaris, 13 mai 2013 - 04:22 .

[remydat]

IanPolaris wrote...

The reapers do have a motive.  However, given the vast differences of scale between them and all other sentient life, there is no reason why any of us could or should be able to comprehend it.  Legion says as much when describing Nazara in ME2.

-Polaris

Edit:  I also think "better" can be judged relatively objectively.  The Reapers were introduced very much like Cthulu-like horrors.  That meant it wasn't required to explain their motives.  Therefore if you did it should be done within the ongoing context of the entire series (and it's not), and it should add more to the narrative of the story than it takes away (and it doesn't).  If it did, then you wouldn't have had this reaction against the original endings (which really were the same as the EC minus the exposition and Galactic Dark Age).

We are sentient.  We can think.  There is no reason why a writer shouldn't attempt to give us a reason and whether we comprehend it or not is up to us as the reader to decide.

And whether they were introduced as Cthulu horros if irrelevant as again making such a statement is requiring the writer to follow that formula.  As a writing I don't need to adopt all the elements of Lovecraft just because I choose borrow some of it's elements.

The Usual Suspects plays like your typical crime heist until the big twist at the end.  That twist made it one of my favorite movies.  In the end, this is down to personal perference.

[IanPolaris]

remydat wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

The reapers do have a motive.  However, given the vast differences of scale between them and all other sentient life, there is no reason why any of us could or should be able to comprehend it.  Legion says as much when describing Nazara in ME2.

-Polaris

Edit:  I also think "better" can be judged relatively objectively.  The Reapers were introduced very much like Cthulu-like horrors.  That meant it wasn't required to explain their motives.  Therefore if you did it should be done within the ongoing context of the entire series (and it's not), and it should add more to the narrative of the story than it takes away (and it doesn't).  If it did, then you wouldn't have had this reaction against the original endings (which really were the same as the EC minus the exposition and Galactic Dark Age).

We are sentient.  We can think.  There is no reason why a writer shouldn't attempt to give us a reason and whether we comprehend it or not is up to us as the reader to decide.

You assume that sentience is a binary condition.  What if it isn't?  What if the though processess of a sufficiently developed intelligence could not be comprehended?  For that matter what if we weren't sentient by it's standards?

I think it's unreasonable to assume that a writer with perhaps somewhat better than average intelligence could fully describe/comprehend the full motivations of a being or beings with effective IQ scores in the thousands along with millions of years of experience.  That's the Lovecraftian model and it was the model used in ME1 and ME2, and it works.

And whether they were introduced as Cthulu horros if irrelevant as again making such a statement is requiring the writer to follow that formula.  As a writing I don't need to adopt all the elements of Lovecraft just because I choose borrow some of it's elements.

The Usual Suspects plays like your typical crime heist until the big twist at the end.  That twist made it one of my favorite movies.  In the end, this is down to personal perference.

It is not irrelevant.  If you are going to go away from the Lovecraftian model, then you need to replace it with something better and Bioware didn't.  Bottom line.

-Polaris

[dreamgazer]

Only-Twin wrote...

Imagine if series like Star Wars or Harry Potter had bitter-sweet endings.

The ending of Episode VI is arguably the worst thing about the original trilogy.

The ending of Episode III, which is fairly dark and bittersweet for that series, is arguably the best thing about the prequel trilogy.

[remydat]

IanPolaris wrote...

You assume that sentience is a binary condition.  What if it isn't?  What if the though processess of a sufficiently developed intelligence could not be comprehended?  For that matter what if we weren't sentient by it's standards?

I think it's unreasonable to assume that a writer with perhaps somewhat better than average intelligence could fully describe/comprehend the full motivations of a being or beings with effective IQ scores in the thousands along with millions of years of experience.  That's the Lovecraftian model and it was the model used in ME1 and ME2, and it works.

It is not irrelevant.  If you are going to go away from the Lovecraftian model, then you need to replace it with something better and Bioware didn't.  Bottom line.

-Polaris

No I accept sentience may not be a binary condition.  I think as a writer you owe it to you audience to explain the motives of sentient beings.  This is a fictional story.  You need to have enough skill as a writer to take a stab at explaining the motives of your characters period.  Otherwise, it is a cop out IMO.

It was better for me.  Fine if it was not for you.

[IanPolaris]

remydat wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

You assume that sentience is a binary condition.  What if it isn't?  What if the though processess of a sufficiently developed intelligence could not be comprehended?  For that matter what if we weren't sentient by it's standards?

I think it's unreasonable to assume that a writer with perhaps somewhat better than average intelligence could fully describe/comprehend the full motivations of a being or beings with effective IQ scores in the thousands along with millions of years of experience.  That's the Lovecraftian model and it was the model used in ME1 and ME2, and it works.

It is not irrelevant.  If you are going to go away from the Lovecraftian model, then you need to replace it with something better and Bioware didn't.  Bottom line.

-Polaris

No I accept sentience may not be a binary condition.  I think as a writer you owe it to you audience to explain the motives of sentient beings.  This is a fictional story.  You need to have enough skill as a writer to take a stab at explaining the motives of your characters period.  Otherwise, it is a cop out IMO.

It was better for me.  Fine if it was not for you.

Point.  Missing it.  I think it's entirely reasonable for the motives of hyper-advanced beings to be incomprehensible.

-Polaris