1470 réponses à ce sujet

[Argolas]

David7204 wrote...

What do you think? Would you agree with the Reapers then?

You did just say it is better, after all.

No, I wouldn't, but others might.

It's simple, it makes sense and it serves as a motivation for the Reapers just fine IMO. That's all I wanted to say.

[Archonsg]

The Reapers didn't need a reason to kill every technologically advanced species in the galaxy.

In fact even the Catalyst and its "I built Synthetics to kill you before you build synthetics to kill yourself" logic and reason would be fine *if* they had remained as villians and not misunderstood messiahs.

More to the point, had Shepard not been required to accept this line of logic and been able to fight a victory against it.

[nos_astra]

IanPolaris wrote...

David7204 wrote...

That's not good enough.

What I mean is a motive that a reasonable player would have a fair chance of considering legitimate. That means you, assuming you consider yourself reasonable. Nobody is going to think "The Reapers murder and torture trillions of people because they don't want them to suffer." is legitimate.

Which may mean we aren't 'advanced' enough to understand them.  I've always felt that the Reapers were best left as a mystery with regard to their precise motives.  They are ancient, malign, extremely advanced and unknowable....and knowing them doesn't matter, stopping them does.

-Polaris

When I was playing a little in my ME imagination sandbox what I came up with was equilibrium: the condition of a system in which all competing influences are balanced. Sounds nice. Maybe it could work as an attempt to put the Reapers' motivation in fancy words but ultimately failing. Something like that.

Modifié par klarabella, 14 mai 2013 - 06:28 .

[IanPolaris]

David7204 wrote...

So that's a no, then? You're saying the Reapers should not have a legitimate motive?

You need to read what I post more carefully.  I am saying that in this case it wasn't necessary.  If it wasn't necessary, then you need to be sure you are adding something by doing this (giving motive) and in this case they really aren't. 

-Polaris

[David7204]

For the ending to be knocked out of the park, a motive is necessary.

[IanPolaris]

David7204 wrote...

For the ending to be knocked out of the park, a motive is necessary.

I dispute this.

-Polaris

[The Heretic of Time]

David7204 wrote...

For the ending to be knocked out of the park, a motive is necessary.

That's just your opinion.

Read the Call of Cthulhu and see if you still feel this way after reading that.

[dreamgazer]

David7204 wrote...

For the ending to be knocked out of the park, a motive is necessary.

Why?

[David7204]

Because Mass Effect is a work of fiction where both the player and player character are expected to investigate and have their questions answered. This isn't Lovecraft, and being mysterious doesn't cut it. This is perhaps the most important question of the adventure, and it needs to validate that style, not abandon it. Plenty of characters are content to not care about their enemy as long as he's dead. Shepard isn't.

Because the ending needs to follow up on the considerable foreshadowing of the Reapers established previously. Not doing so would just be a cop-out.

Modifié par David7204, 14 mai 2013 - 06:59 .

[IanPolaris]

David7204 wrote...

Because Mass Effect is a work of fiction where both the player and player character are expected to investigate and have their questions answered. This isn't Lovecraft, and being mysterious doesn't cut it.

Because the ending needs to follow up on the considerable foreshadowing of the Reapers established previously. Not doing so would just be a cop-out.

I don't find any of this compelling.  The Reapers were designed (in ME1 and 2 particularly) to be very much like the Cthulu Horrors in Lovecraft.  All we really need to know is that they have a motivation, and it involves us being dead (or worse).

-Polaris

[David7204]

First of all, I'm guessing that Cthulu is never actually killed or defeated by the protagonists in the Lovecraft story. So that's a huge difference right off the bat. It should have been obvious right from the beginning the story would end with the Reapers dying. If the Reapers can be killed, they clearly aren't above us enough to basically gods.

You don't get to have it both ways. If we can kill them, it shouldn't be impossible to understand them.

Modifié par David7204, 14 mai 2013 - 07:04 .

[Seboist]

The Reaper motivation of killing organics to prevent organics from being killed by machines is so utterly moronic that it makes the plot of Plan 9 from Outer Space where aliens raise the dead to stop humans from building a bomb that destroys the universe look sensible.

[IanPolaris]

David7204 wrote...

First of all, I'm guessing that Cthulu is never actually killed or defeated by the protagonists in the Lovecraft story. So that's a huge difference right off the bat. It should have been obvious right from the beginning the story would end with the Reapers dying. If the Reapers can be killed, they clearly aren't above us enough to basically gods.

You don't get to have it both ways. If we can kill them, it shouldn't be impossible to understand them.

That isn't true at all.  It's quite possible to fight and even destroy something you don't understand.  In fact it happens all too frequently.  Like I said before, I don't find your reasoning terribly compelling.

-Polaris

[David7204]

Whether it's possible is utterly inconsequential. We don't put things in stories just because they're possible. We put things in stories that make good stories, and this doesn't make a good story at all, possible or not.

Modifié par David7204, 14 mai 2013 - 07:16 .

[drayfish]

David7204 wrote...

First of all, I'm guessing that Cthulu is never actually killed or defeated by the protagonists in the Lovecraft story. So that's a huge difference right off the bat. It should have been obvious right from the beginning the story would end with the Reapers dying. If the Reapers can be killed, they clearly aren't above us enough to basically gods.

You don't get to have it both ways. If we can kill them, it shouldn't be impossible to understand them.

And here - for those asking earlier in the thread - is why the Joker was mentioned previously...

There are plenty of incredibly successful fictions in which the reason for why the antagonist acts is not understood.  As have already been mentioned: the Joker from The Dark Knight, Iago from Othello, Aaron from Titus Andronicus, arguably Moriarty from the 'Holmes' fictions, the monsters of Lovecraft.

In each of these cases, the fact that they cannot be assigned a logical explaination for their actions makes them all the more terrifying.

[Argolas]

Another issue: Was it maybe also just the wrong time to reveal the Reapers' motives? It felt horrible how the ending just shifted the focus away from Shepard and the others (who we care about) to the villains like it was nothing.. This abrupt change could be one of the reasons why the ending leaves you confused and dissatisfied.

Modifié par Argolas, 14 mai 2013 - 08:08 .

[The Twilight God]

The only option they really had was metaphysical.

Reapers are actually ascended beings like the Ori in Stargate, but not so Q-like powerful. That would reconcile Soveriegns words and explain the use of organic material in their construction (organic matter to bridge the barrier between "spirit" and machine. They want to stay in power in whatever realm they are in and exterminate "lesser races" so that they cannot eventually elevate to their level. The details of their existence or even why they are how they are personality wise or why they don't take alternative methods of maintaining power could remain a mystery.

This is what I thought the Reapers were since that first conversation with Soveriegn. This was reinforced in the Collector base. This would also explain why a sentient being would want to sit out in the middle of empty space for thousands of years: The dreadnaughts are just tools to interact with the physical world and are put back in the shed until needed.

I can think of no way to reconcile ME1 and 2.

[David7204]

I don't care how many other stories do it, and I'm getting irritated at people listing them off like it matters. It doesn't. Mass Effect is unique.

The Reapers are immensely powerful and advanced enemies. But unlike other stories such as Lovecraft that are content to have them beyond the grasp of the characters, our protagonist isn't helpless. Mass Effect demonstates a strong theme time and time again, that we can do something. That we can challenge them and even beat them.

The ending was despised primarily because it failed to validate that theme. Because players saw it as their heroism counting for nothing, as being forced into an outcome they should have been able to prevent.

Likewise, the series has a theme of investigation, asking questions, and getting good answers. Every time new material is introduce, the player is allowed to ask about it, and the answers are expected to be good.

This is precisly the same problem. At the moment it matters absolutely most, at the question that players are the most curious about, we throw our hands up and say "Nope! Can't do it! Too advanced! Too complicated! We're just too stupid to ever comprehend them!" It's the same reason that people hate the endings now - A betrayal of the themes that constitute the series. Nowhere near as bad as the endings, but nevertheless a very substantial problem.

Modifié par David7204, 14 mai 2013 - 07:40 .

[Bill Casey]

David7204 wrote...

First of all, I'm guessing that Cthulu is never actually killed or defeated by the protagonists in the Lovecraft story. So that's a huge difference right off the bat.

They rammed a boat into him and he sank back into the sea...

[Clayless]

Tbh it would be pretty crappy if the Reapers just did things for no reason. Mentioning the Joker, even he did things because he enjoyed it.

[David7204]

Bill Casey wrote...

David7204 wrote...

First of all, I'm guessing that Cthulu is never actually killed or defeated by the protagonists in the Lovecraft story. So that's a huge difference right off the bat.

They rammed a boat into him and he sank back into the sea...

That's it?

That sounds like a bit of a cop-out. I thought it was an all-powerful Eldrich Abomination.

Modifié par David7204, 14 mai 2013 - 07:40 .

[dreamgazer]

Not revealing the motive =/= without motive.

[David7204]

If the audience doesn't know about it, it doesn't exist.

[TheProtheans]

It's different than ramming something up the Catalyst's ass.