1470 réponses à ce sujet

[Cainhurst Crow]

What makes you want to defend this bad tradition so badly, mr. polaris?

[IanPolaris]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

What makes you want to defend this bad tradition so badly, mr. polaris?

What makes you think it's a bad tradition mr brotarian?

For the record I am and was not opposed necessarily to giving the Reapers motives, but I think I (and others) have argued with reasonable persuasiveness that it really wasn't necessary.

That being so, if Bioware wanted to do it, then it should have come up with something better than a Lovecraftian style mystery....and they didn't (in spades).

-Polaris

[AlanC9]

Archonsg wrote...

Isn't that is why such a fuss was kicked up? Not because it was badly writen or executed, but badly writen and poorly executed at a critical juncture, at the *end* of the tale?

Had this ending been ME2's ending, and ME3 had ME2's "Suicide mission" various endings, how much different would you think the response would have been?

That's a hard counterfactual to evaluate; some of the problems people have with the ending wouldn't be problems if there was another game coming.

[IanPolaris]

Robosexual wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

OK, I misunderstood you then.  Thanks for clarifying.  As for sources, I could point out that five minutes using google will find you all sorts of polls and surveys that show that ME3's ending didn't go down well.  Of course they aren't scientific, but then again, we don't have any scientific evidence (or ANY evidence) to the contrary either.

-Polaris

Yeah, though all those polls could be the same people voting, which is why it's best to go with the biggest one; The Retake Movement.

I am not a member of the Retake Movement, but my feelings are very clear.  That's why I dispute your methedology.

-Polaris

[AlanC9]

IanPolaris wrote...

For the record I am and was not opposed necessarily to giving the Reapers motives, but I think I (and others) have argued with reasonable persuasiveness that it really wasn't necessary.

I suppose so. For me motiveless reapers would have been a horrible cop-out and made the game worse than what we got. But Bio certainly could have made a game that was worse than what we got, so yeah, it wasn't "necessary."

Modifié par AlanC9, 13 mai 2013 - 06:35 .

[nos_astra]

remydat wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

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

-Polaris

And I think it is entirely a cop out and lazy as a writer and choose that as the motivation of a fictional character you created and thus have the ability to create a motive for.

I think a good writer should know whether or not the villain needs a motive. 

The Reapers as established in ME1 didn't need one. In fact, they were set up in a way that finding out a motive was unlikely: Ancient machines that cull the galaxy every 50.000 years. Possibly post-singularity AIs that have evolved to a point where organics can't hope to grasp how they think.

Any motive uncovered would have meant another oversight on the Reapers' part. Oh look, the long lost archive we just happened upon tells us what the Reapers are up to. Or even better. The villains themselves suddenly think our totally awesome protagonist by virtue of being the protagonist is worthy of telling him about their purpose in very small words, so he can help them!

We got the latter which is a way of explaining the villain's motive you'd find in a Scooby Doo cartoon.
And the former relies on the galaxy being the size of a village and information that has remained hidden for an unimaginable long time popping up just now.

Or you could just not explain the villains in plain words and instead have the characters speculate, trying to solve a puzzle but never getting the full picture, with the narrative focussing on how the characters deal with a threat they don't fully comprehend, leaving open whether they will survive this or not.

[DDK]

 I really hope this doesn't translate to, "Give all the whiny fanbois what they want!"

ME3 was a great game BECAUSE of the ending, not despite it. The online whine-fest is just the vocal minority.

[Megaton_Hope]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

I will grant you that, but the reapers are not one of those types of characters. They are presented as a mystery in the past two games, one that we needed to unravel in order to stop. And there are tons of mythological stories that do delve into why their gods and deities do what they do.

In terms of cause and effect exterior to the mind of that god, maybe.

When Hera punishes Zeus's  mortal lovers, does she do it from jealousy, as a mortal woman might feel upon being replaced in her husband's affections? When Zeus hangs Hera from the sky by golden chains with a weight at her feet after she leads a rebellion against him, is he doing it to correct her behavior in the future, as a deterrent to others, or simply as a form of garden-variety spousal abuse? Why does Ishtar mistreat all her mortal lovers, as related by Gilgamesh when she propositions him?

Generally, a myth is stated in terms of visible actions, and interiority bedamned.

How does unraveling the mystery of the Reapers help us to stop them, do you think? Me personally, I would say that the only mystery that needs unraveling for Shepard to solve the Reaper threat is some exploitable weakness, which may or may not involve an investigation into their history and nature. It happens that such an investigation was offered, but I certainly wouldn't call it necessary.

The problem here is that there is a clear plan and a clear goal being meet by the reapers, but no reason presented or hinted at as to why it is they are working towards that goal at all. But what is presented at the same time is a need to find out why the reapers are doing this in order to stop them, and that is why not giving the reapers any motivation is a bad idea.

If somebody's coming at you with a knife, his intent is to poke a hole in you from which the important fluids that sustain your life will drain out. What further dissection of his decision-making process is required to stop him from doing it?

[Cainhurst Crow]

IanPolaris wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

What makes you want to defend this bad tradition so badly, mr. polaris?

What makes you think it's a bad tradition mr brotarian?

For the record I am and was not opposed necessarily to giving the Reapers motives, but I think I (and others) have argued with reasonable persuasiveness that it really wasn't necessary.

That being so, if Bioware wanted to do it, then it should have come up with something better than a Lovecraftian style mystery....and they didn't (in spades).

-Polaris

They should have made a better motivation, I won't argue that.

But the reason I hate the lack of motivation given angle being applied to the reapers is that they didn't earn that right, in my opinion, especially with sovereign in ME1.

Soveriegn's responses of dismissal serve to infuriate me to no end, not because I think the reapers are weak or anthing, but I feel that he's just plain wrong in what he says, and that he is proven wrong throught the entire game after that point. It is shown that organic life is not an accident, but something that was controlled to happen, and interfered with by the protheans. It is shown that we organics are capable of fighting, and killing, a reapers, having slain sovereign itself in his attempt to open the relay. We basically defied the reapers and won in ME1, and that strips them of any right of "this is beyond what you people are capable of getting". You loose that right to me the moment you loose a battle so thourghly.

The fact that we talk to this great entity one on one, that we essentially have pulled back the curtain on this pretend boogeyman almost to the entire point in mass effect 1 alone, but that the very last thing which could prove vital to defeating the reapers, since targeting what they are after and taking it away could stop the war entierly or help us combat it on something greater than a brute force fight, is proclaimed to be needed to be kept hidden.

In general however, I find the lack of a motivation in a character to be the sign of lazy writing and the author simply not wanting to need to explain why a character is doing what he or she is doing. Motivation to me is a reason for which a character preforms an action, and it is vital for me to know what it is that a character is working for when they do what they do, whether that be as simply as them feeling like doing that action at the time. But just as leaving an answer blank on a test doesn't mean you get credit, even if the answer to the question was nothing, not having it explained or even spectulated on by the characters is a sign of a half-assed job to me. It says that rather than find something that made sense for a story, the writer decided to force a character to act a certain way as to drive a plot point in a certain direction.

[drayfish]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

What makes you want to defend this bad tradition so badly, mr. polaris?

Firstly: you've still not given 'motivation' to the characters cited - merely their consequential behaviour. 

Much of this has already been said, but the reason the Joker functions as an agent of chaos is precisely because he is unknowable, seemingly irrational.  Putting an explanational, expositionsal bow around him would devastate that.  All the speechifying he does throught the film expressly undermines any such hope for understanding or empathy.  That's why he gives multiple versions of how he got his scars.

Lovecraftian horrors - by their very nature - bewilder human logic (much as the Reapers themselves once claimed to do).  Again, they cannot be known or understood, and it serves, rather than hinders, the story.

The guy who lives with, observes, and daily catalogues the life of Sherlock Holmes, Dr Watson, never ultimately settles on what makes him tick, so it's a little presumptuous of you to leap in with a definitive summary.  Similarly, even Holmes can't satisfactorilly rationalise Moriarty, except as his antithesis.

The motivations of the ancient Greek gods similarly defied comprehension.  Iago, who I cited, likewise can't be dropped in a simplistic box that explains his actions away - and I think most people would agree Shakespeare knew a little something about writing.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Megaton_Hope wrote...

If somebody's coming at you with a knife, his intent is to poke a hole in you from which the important fluids that sustain your life will drain out. What further dissection of his decision-making process is required to stop him from doing it?

But that's not what's happening here. The reapers are like someone whose been stalking you for twenty years, leaves you cryptic letters at unknown times in places while your not looking, and destroys small pieces of your propery once in a while.

This is a slow, maticulous thing being done, requireing lots of time, paitence, effort, and orginization to be accomplished. It's clearly not a spur of the moment idea, or act of desperation on their part. They've been doing this for millions of years now.

I would very much want to know what they want, if they did all of that and spent this much time and energy getting what they wanted done. I'd like to know what it is they wanted and why in the first place.

[IanPolaris]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

They should have made a better motivation, I won't argue that.

But the reason I hate the lack of motivation given angle being applied to the reapers is that they didn't earn that right, in my opinion, especially with sovereign in ME1.

Soveriegn's responses of dismissal serve to infuriate me to no end, not because I think the reapers are weak or anthing, but I feel that he's just plain wrong in what he says, and that he is proven wrong throught the entire game after that point. It is shown that organic life is not an accident, but something that was controlled to happen, and interfered with by the protheans. It is shown that we organics are capable of fighting, and killing, a reapers, having slain sovereign itself in his attempt to open the relay. We basically defied the reapers and won in ME1, and that strips them of any right of "this is beyond what you people are capable of getting". You loose that right to me the moment you loose a battle so thourghly.

Big Bad Aliens that are millions of years old, and have wipe out entire cycles (many we learn) of intelligent and advanced galactic civilizations with almost no trace?  I'd say they've 'earned' the right.  As for Soveign losing the battle "so thoroughly", well he didn't.  In fact it was a very near cut thing and as many will remind you, that was ONE reaper.

Now, does that mean the reapers are as powerful as they think they are?  No.  There I would agree with you, but I would certainly say that their power, age, and general nature makes it unnecessary to learn their Minnesota Multiphasic Index results.

The fact that we talk to this great entity one on one, that we essentially have pulled back the curtain on this pretend boogeyman almost to the entire point in mass effect 1 alone, but that the very last thing which could prove vital to defeating the reapers, since targeting what they are after and taking it away could stop the war entierly or help us combat it on something greater than a brute force fight, is proclaimed to be needed to be kept hidden.

Not necessarily.  In fact Sovereign's line "You exist because we allow it, and you will end because we demand it" is one of my favorites and it's really all we need to know ultimately.  They're big, they're bad, they're coming, and unless you find a way to stop them, the galaxy is DEAD MEAT.

In general however, I find the lack of a motivation in a character to be the sign of lazy writing and the author simply not wanting to need to explain why a character is doing what he or she is doing. Motivation to me is a reason for which a character preforms an action, and it is vital for me to know what it is that a character is working for when they do what they do, whether that be as simply as them feeling like doing that action at the time. But just as leaving an answer blank on a test doesn't mean you get credit, even if the answer to the question was nothing, not having it explained or even spectulated on by the characters is a sign of a half-assed job to me. It says that rather than find something that made sense for a story, the writer decided to force a character to act a certain way as to drive a plot point in a certain direction.

I disagree with you.  I think that lack of explicit motivation for things like the Reapers is very appropriate for many stories including Mass Effect.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Megaton_Hope wrote...

If somebody's coming at you with a knife, his intent is to poke a hole in you from which the important fluids that sustain your life will drain out. What further dissection of his decision-making process is required to stop him from doing it?

But that's not what's happening here. The reapers are like someone whose been stalking you for twenty years, leaves you cryptic letters at unknown times in places while your not looking, and destroys small pieces of your propery once in a while.

This is a slow, maticulous thing being done, requireing lots of time, paitence, effort, and orginization to be accomplished. It's clearly not a spur of the moment idea, or act of desperation on their part. They've been doing this for millions of years now.

I would very much want to know what they want, if they did all of that and spent this much time and energy getting what they wanted done. I'd like to know what it is they wanted and why in the first place.

I disagree.  That's exactly what's happening here.  The Reapers are coming and they will harvest this all (advanced) life in this cycle.  By the scale of the Reaper's age (and for that matter even the age of this cycle), this is a very rapid thing....very much like a knife fight. 

-Polaris

[Cainhurst Crow]

drayfish wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

What makes you want to defend this bad tradition so badly, mr. polaris?

Firstly: you've still not given 'motivation' to the characters cited - merely their consequential behaviour. 

Perhaps there is a language barrier here getting in the way.

When I say a motivation for a character, I mean the reason for which a character preforms their action. Nothing more or less.

The reapers to me do not give a reason for why they preform the actions they do. Do they wish to continue thier species propogation? Do they wish to enlighten other species tot heri way of doing things? Do they simply want to wipe out organic life in this particular means?

Even the very basics of what the reapers want is confusing, as we cannot tell whether they wish to harvest us, save us, or destroy us, or a combination of a whole bunch of options. All we ever get is "Shut up and stop asking questions" from the writers every time a reaper opens it's mouth.

[IanPolaris]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

drayfish wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

What makes you want to defend this bad tradition so badly, mr. polaris?

Firstly: you've still not given 'motivation' to the characters cited - merely their consequential behaviour. 

Perhaps there is a language barrier here getting in the way.

When I say a motivation for a character, I mean the reason for which a character preforms their action. Nothing more or less.

The reapers to me do not give a reason for why they preform the actions they do. Do they wish to continue thier species propogation? Do they wish to enlighten other species tot heri way of doing things? Do they simply want to wipe out organic life in this particular means?

Even the very basics of what the reapers want is confusing, as we cannot tell whether they wish to harvest us, save us, or destroy us, or a combination of a whole bunch of options. All we ever get is "Shut up and stop asking questions" from the writers every time a reaper opens it's mouth.

I understand you perfectly.  I disagree with you that knowing this is really necessary in many cases including this one (Reapers in Mass Effect).

-Polaris

[Cainhurst Crow]

IanPolaris wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Megaton_Hope wrote...

If somebody's coming at you with a knife, his intent is to poke a hole in you from which the important fluids that sustain your life will drain out. What further dissection of his decision-making process is required to stop him from doing it?

But that's not what's happening here. The reapers are like someone whose been stalking you for twenty years, leaves you cryptic letters at unknown times in places while your not looking, and destroys small pieces of your propery once in a while.

This is a slow, maticulous thing being done, requireing lots of time, paitence, effort, and orginization to be accomplished. It's clearly not a spur of the moment idea, or act of desperation on their part. They've been doing this for millions of years now.

I would very much want to know what they want, if they did all of that and spent this much time and energy getting what they wanted done. I'd like to know what it is they wanted and why in the first place.

I disagree.  That's exactly what's happening here.  The Reapers are coming and they will harvest this all (advanced) life in this cycle.  By the scale of the Reaper's age (and for that matter even the age of this cycle), this is a very rapid thing....very much like a knife fight. 

-Polaris

Than why manipulate the rachni? And the batarians? And cerberus? If they aren't planning out any of their actions and are simply moving at a spur of the moment pace to them?

[Cainhurst Crow]

Ian Polaris said...

I understand you perfectly.  I disagree with you that knowing this is
really necessary in many cases including this one (Reapers in Mass
Effect).

-Polaris

Very well than. You say it works for mass effect, I say it doesn't work for mass effect.

Shall we just agree to disagree than? I feel this is devolving into a battle of whose personal taste is stronger, and nothing good comes of those.

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 13 mai 2013 - 07:19 .

[IanPolaris]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Megaton_Hope wrote...

If somebody's coming at you with a knife, his intent is to poke a hole in you from which the important fluids that sustain your life will drain out. What further dissection of his decision-making process is required to stop him from doing it?

But that's not what's happening here. The reapers are like someone whose been stalking you for twenty years, leaves you cryptic letters at unknown times in places while your not looking, and destroys small pieces of your propery once in a while.

This is a slow, maticulous thing being done, requireing lots of time, paitence, effort, and orginization to be accomplished. It's clearly not a spur of the moment idea, or act of desperation on their part. They've been doing this for millions of years now.

I would very much want to know what they want, if they did all of that and spent this much time and energy getting what they wanted done. I'd like to know what it is they wanted and why in the first place.

I disagree.  That's exactly what's happening here.  The Reapers are coming and they will harvest this all (advanced) life in this cycle.  By the scale of the Reaper's age (and for that matter even the age of this cycle), this is a very rapid thing....very much like a knife fight. 

-Polaris

Than why manipulate the rachni? And the batarians? And cerberus? If they aren't planning out any of their actions and are simply moving at a spur of the moment pace to them?

Maybe this is spur of the moment for the Reapers.  After all, the entire span from the start of the Rachni Wars to the end of ME3 is only about 2500 years.  That's nothing compared to the approximately one billion years the Reapers have been around.  For that matter, the Reapers also did the same things with the Protheans (we know at least one pro-control Prothean group was indoctrinated and broke the Prothean order of battle). 

Also don't forget that the Reapers apparently aren't very imaginative and like to do the same things over and over again.  Of course they are so powerful that they get away with this.

Also remember that the Reapers won the last Harvest vs the Protheans effectively instantaneously when they took over the citadel and shut down the mass relays.  The rest was mop up. 

My point is that in each case the Reapers seem to be acting (for them) extremely rapidly.

-Polaris

[drayfish]

IanPolaris wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

drayfish wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

What makes you want to defend this bad tradition so badly, mr. polaris?

Firstly: you've still not given 'motivation' to the characters cited - merely their consequential behaviour. 

Perhaps there is a language barrier here getting in the way.

When I say a motivation for a character, I mean the reason for which a character preforms their action. Nothing more or less.

The reapers to me do not give a reason for why they preform the actions they do. Do they wish to continue thier species propogation? Do they wish to enlighten other species tot heri way of doing things? Do they simply want to wipe out organic life in this particular means?

Even the very basics of what the reapers want is confusing, as we cannot tell whether they wish to harvest us, save us, or destroy us, or a combination of a whole bunch of options. All we ever get is "Shut up and stop asking questions" from the writers every time a reaper opens it's mouth.

I understand you perfectly.  I disagree with you that knowing this is really necessary in many cases including this one (Reapers in Mass Effect).

-Polaris

Co-signed.

With a wealth of profoundly successful literature and entertainment exhibiting how true that belief is.

Modifié par drayfish, 13 mai 2013 - 07:25 .

[Bill Casey]

IanPolaris wrote...

This isn't characteristic of a true villian.  The true villian in ME1 is Saren not Sovereign.

Then why isn't the game over after Saren kills himself?


The final boss battle in ME1 is with Sovereign...
The final boss battle in ME2 is with the Human Reaper...

Every single husk, banshee, marauder, brute, collector, etc is a reaper...
They just aren't capital ships or destroyers...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 13 mai 2013 - 07:42 .

[Silcron]

I have to say that to me they didn't need to verbally explain their motives. Simply the end of ME2 gave all I needed. They come, they wipe a cycle and create a new reaper, then go away while another cycle comes.

So basically they were like reproducing in their odd, strange way. Why make the cycle? why have ot fight? Well the same can be asked to any hunter. Why go through all that or even risk your life when you can just buy the meat in a store?

They're ancient, they don't feel like explaining, they come, they wipe us and a new reaper is born. We naturally don't feel like being turned into goo to beomce a new reaper and resist this ancient threat. That was it, that was all I needed not all the Catalyst's broken logic and talk about chaos, order and synthetics killing organics. Hell he's even a hypocrite since his actions uprising synthetics that otherwise would be wiped prove him wrong.

I'll just give a nother example. When we wipe in a house a colony of ants because we don't want them going around in our house, we don't go and talk to the ants about why we're doing it. To the ants we are ancient and allmighty, and if they were sentient would any exterminator waste his time in explaining the ants he's killing them simply because the house's owner doesn't want them there and he's paying?

[Cainhurst Crow]

drayfish wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

drayfish wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

What makes you want to defend this bad tradition so badly, mr. polaris?

Firstly: you've still not given 'motivation' to the characters cited - merely their consequential behaviour. 

Perhaps there is a language barrier here getting in the way.

When I say a motivation for a character, I mean the reason for which a character preforms their action. Nothing more or less.

The reapers to me do not give a reason for why they preform the actions they do. Do they wish to continue thier species propogation? Do they wish to enlighten other species tot heri way of doing things? Do they simply want to wipe out organic life in this particular means?

Even the very basics of what the reapers want is confusing, as we cannot tell whether they wish to harvest us, save us, or destroy us, or a combination of a whole bunch of options. All we ever get is "Shut up and stop asking questions" from the writers every time a reaper opens it's mouth.

I understand you perfectly.  I disagree with you that knowing this is really necessary in many cases including this one (Reapers in Mass Effect).

-Polaris

Co-signed.

With a wealth of profoundly successful literature and entertainment exhibiting how true that belief is.

I am not contesting the lack of a reason for a characters action in all fiction, just in mass effect. I don't particularly like it, but I can tolerate it in many other works. In mass effect and applying to the reapers though? No. I can't bring myself to give them that slack.

So, with that said, shall we simply call this a day and move on? I don't feel much like discussing this topic further since I am making no headway and no headway is being made on myself.

[IanPolaris]

Bill Casey wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

This isn't characteristic of a true villian.  The true villian in ME1 is Saren not Sovereign.

Then why isn't the game over after Saren kills himself?


The final boss battle in ME1 is with Sovereign...
The final boss battle in ME2 is with the Human Reaper...

Every single husk, banshee, marauder, brute, collector, etc is a reaper...
They just aren't capital ships or destroyers...

It really is (over when Saren kills himself).  It can be difficult to notice, but the final game save is made just before you fight the Saren-Zombie.  In terms of game/thematic structure, it's really two boss fights (one of which you can avoid with a paragon/renegade option) seperated by a lengthy "Cimax Scene" interlude.  In both cases you fight Saren (or zombie Saren).  Sovereign is destroyed in a cut scene.

-Polaris

[Bill Casey]

It's stupid to explain it after saying it's beyond your comprehension...

[Bill Casey]

IanPolaris wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

This isn't characteristic of a true villian.  The true villian in ME1 is Saren not Sovereign.

Then why isn't the game over after Saren kills himself?


The final boss battle in ME1 is with Sovereign...
The final boss battle in ME2 is with the Human Reaper...

Every single husk, banshee, marauder, brute, collector, etc is a reaper...
They just aren't capital ships or destroyers...

It really is (over when Saren kills himself).  It can be difficult to notice, but the final game save is made just before you fight the Saren-Zombie.  In terms of game/thematic structure, it's really two boss fights (one of which you can avoid with a paragon/renegade option) seperated by a lengthy "Cimax Scene" interlude.  In both cases you fight Saren (or zombie Saren).  Sovereign is destroyed in a cut scene.

-Polaris

Zombie Saren is Sovereign...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 13 mai 2013 - 07:50 .