224 réponses à ce sujet

[Nerevar-as]

David7204 wrote...

Nerevar-as wrote...

Memories. I can believe everything else can be repaired, and the brain´s "hardware", so to speak, but the memories? Would be close to acceptable by quick freezing, but Shepard died from lack of oxigen  and was around for quite long before being recovered.

And completely ignoring what it would mean for a person in a universe where dead is considered to be final is a complete waste. They just thought of a cheap shock for a few months of marketing.

Everything is hardware if you zoom in far enough.

The brain is robust. There have been people with bullets or metal spikes in their head who have retained their memories. Brain cells die.

Nor do I see Shepard as obligated to angst about it. S/he has an established personality of focusing on the moment and taking things as they come. Is Shepard obligated to continually gush about saving the galaxy? 

Venting frustration to Liara in LOTSB felt good. Then they went over the top in ME3 and ruined it. But dying and resurrecting asked for much more than "I got better". But one of the most annoying things in ME2 is that Shepard was just firepower and therapist to the squad. S/he was a supporting character to other supporting characters, and the less developed one (or not developed at all).

[CronoDragoon]

Nerevar-as wrote...

S/he was a supporting character to other supporting characters, and the less developed one (or not developed at all).

How can you develop a main character as malleable as Shepard, though? Unless I misunderstood your sentence?

[Wayning_Star]

CronoDragoon wrote...

David7204 wrote...

The fact that the Crucible adds nothing meaningful to the story.

It's only purpose is to check the box of 'Solution to the Reapers.' It adds absolutely nothing else. It has no meaningful themes, motifs, or merit attached to it. It's as bare-bones as it can be.

You haven't thought about it enough, then. The Crucible represents the collected effort of not just this cycle but all cycles previous. The Crucible validates their efforts and saves them from the label of "struggles in futility." It is much more meaningful in a story about diversity and hope for all cycles to contribute to the end of the Reapers instead of just this one. The Crucible turns the death of the previous cycles into a sacrifice whereas previously it would merely have been defeat.

P.S. I like the Lazarus Project. I love the way it shook up the world of Mass Effect characters, and each reunion with each character was great to witness. It also provided a meaningful way to have Cerberus ingratiate itself with Shepard, thereby introducing some nuance into what was previously a pretty black and white story. For all the complaining about Cerberus in ME3, in my book it was a compelling wrinkle to the story and provided an interesting rival in TIM.

this seems to point out that if those reaperships are destroyed, then all those harvested are lost to creation... and that would merely be 'defeat' for them?

(apparently the catalyst is preserving life via harvests, as those harvested are available for reconnection through synthesis. Most if not all players deny this to be true, but it's game facts..)

[Wayning_Star]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Nerevar-as wrote...

S/he was a supporting character to other supporting characters, and the less developed one (or not developed at all).

How can you develop a main character as malleable as Shepard, though? Unless I misunderstood your sentence?

they mean the catalyst, I think?

[CronoDragoon]

Wayning_Star wrote...
this seems to point out that if those reaperships are destroyed, then all those harvested are lost to creation... and that would merely be 'defeat' for them?

(apparently the catalyst is preserving life via harvests, as those harvested are available for reconnection through synthesis. Most if not all players deny this to be true, but it's game facts..)

It's a defeat for the Catalyst, not for the cycles. The cycles' goal - which is to NOT be harvested - has already been destroyed. Each Reaper is a walking representation of the cycles' inability to defeat the Catalyst on their own. The Crucible plans represent the competence of the totality of cycles together.

The same way that each Reaper adds to the strength of the Catalyst, the Crucible plans are strengthened by improvements made in each cycle. Shepard's cycle is the culmination of a millions-year-long arms race.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 05 juin 2013 - 07:18 .

[Wayning_Star]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...
this seems to point out that if those reaperships are destroyed, then all those harvested are lost to creation... and that would merely be 'defeat' for them?

(apparently the catalyst is preserving life via harvests, as those harvested are available for reconnection through synthesis. Most if not all players deny this to be true, but it's game facts..)

It's a defeat for the Catalyst, not for the cycles. The cycles' goal - which is to NOT be harvested - has already been destroyed. Each Reaper is a walking representation of the cycles' inability to defeat the Catalyst on their own. The Crucible plans represent the competence of the totality of cycles together.

No, the catalyst cannot actually 'fail' it's not important for it to 'win'. Those it has harvested are the victims, not adversarial.

Many blame them for being caught up in the 'system', as it were. Destroy is the 'easy way', as the universe actually seems to expect it, like any other natural disaster.

Bioware inadvertently created a mental monster with the simplest of version boss fight without 'limits'. The game ultimately calls for the union of aggressors. And there is only one way to accomplish this.


So folks vent out with their version of why cannot Shepard live on in real time?

[Wayning_Star]

oh yeah, forgot to mention: Whaaaa!!

lol

[CronoDragoon]

Wayning_Star wrote...

No, the catalyst cannot actually 'fail' it's not important for it to 'win'.

But it is important for it to win. It was given a directive that it MUST accomplish. Every Reaper destroyed is a loss of culture and life (according to the Catalyst's POV) which qualifies as a defeat for its objective.

I'm not sure what the rest of your post is saying, no offense.

[Nerevar-as]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Nerevar-as wrote...

S/he was a supporting character to other supporting characters, and the less developed one (or not developed at all).

How can you develop a main character as malleable as Shepard, though? Unless I misunderstood your sentence?

I could in ME1. His/her stance on humanity´s place on the galaxy, general attitude, and so on. In ME2 s/he was so blank (P/R aside) it could have been a FPS. In ME3 BW took to much control and felt lose to a fixed character rather than RPG.

[David7204]

That is flatly not true.

[Wayning_Star]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

No, the catalyst cannot actually 'fail' it's not important for it to 'win'.

But it is important for it to win. It was given a directive that it MUST accomplish. Every Reaper destroyed is a loss of culture and life (according to the Catalyst's POV) which qualifies as a defeat for its objective.

I'm not sure what the rest of your post is saying, no offense.

we can go back and forth over the finer details of no details, but we do know that it doesn't matter if the catalyst fails, as the choices make that a no brainer...

and that is what the 'rest of my post' is saying in uncertain terms. There is only one canon to this game and it's 'ending' if any, that being synthesis. This has been discussed quite a lot really over the year or so since the game came out. I seen this the first playthrough, even pre EC that only goes to show more information (visual) about the correct choice for the MEU and it's inhabitants.

The 'crisis' is about how that is reflected here in/on old earth where NO clue exists as to the choice they would make, from their actual real world view.

[Wayning_Star]

Nerevar-as wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

Nerevar-as wrote...

S/he was a supporting character to other supporting characters, and the less developed one (or not developed at all).

How can you develop a main character as malleable as Shepard, though? Unless I misunderstood your sentence?

I could in ME1. His/her stance on humanity´s place on the galaxy, general attitude, and so on. In ME2 s/he was so blank (P/R aside) it could have been a FPS. In ME3 BW took to much control and felt lose to a fixed character rather than RPG.

this is interesting, but I'd guess you need to expand on it, as we're not sure what 'felt lose' relates to a fixed character.

Shepard isn't fixed, or in the gist of the story, can actually change over time, user dependent...

[deanpmorrison]

MEHEM for life!

If I had to pick a personal canon ending aside from MEHEM, then it's Destroy with the Star Kid being a reaper that's trying to BS Shepard into not destroying them. The Geth and EDI don't die because the Crucible was designed to destroy the Reapers by previous cycles. It's just nonsense that all the cycles had this ghost Catalyst in their original crucible design, and we know that the Citadel is the actual Catalyst. Not sure if that logic works, but as I said I'm a MEHEM guy anyway.

[CronoDragoon]

Nerevar-as wrote...

I could in ME1. His/her stance on humanity´s place on the galaxy, general attitude, and so on. In ME2 s/he was so blank (P/R aside) it could have been a FPS. In ME3 BW took to much control and felt lose to a fixed character rather than RPG.

I disagree. One thing that immediately jumps to mind is the way that you can shape your attitude towards synthetic beings in ME2. The first time you meet EDI comes to mind.

The dialogue lines themselves also steadily improve as the series progresses. In ME1 Shepard says everything like a robot, and this is not merely the fault of Mark Meer but also the writing. By ME3 Shepard's lines are something closer to words an actual human being in a conversation would say.

[Eterna]

Nerevar-as wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Nerevar-as wrote...

Crucible and/or Starbrat apologists throw this around a lot. Even if it was true, it still doesn´t make ME3 resolution any better.

And what would that make me again, old sport? Care to share your generalization?

Just an idea drawn from observation. p=0.05

And sorry, but Conduit doesn´t fit. There´s a lot of foreshadowing to it and what it did. Crucible is found just as the Reapers arrive, and the Catalyst... less said the better.

So let me get this straight:

The Conduit is mentioned near the beggining of ME1, it becomes a central part of the plot as ME1 progresses, you don't know what it does until very near the end of the game and it solves the plot. You say the Conduit is good.

The Cruicible is mentioned near the very beggining of the game, as the plot progresses it becomes central to said plot, we don't know what it really does until the end of the game and it then solves the plot. You say the crucibl is a bad plot device.

Lol? 

[The Night Mammoth]

dreamgazer wrote...

Hence why it's a hybrid instead of a verbatim DEM, why it's a quasi-MacGuffin until the plot needs it to ultimately fix the problem. The timing of its use, and the way it exploits the info-dump from Vigil about where it leads, borders on that line.

What do you mean by saying it exploits Vigil's exposition? It didn't need that exposition, really, so I don't see where the problem lies, here at least. 

The Protheans' ability to exploit and understand the Reapers' relay tech isn't explained, but, of course, it's not revealed until the last minute that the relays are Reaper design, either.

I don't think it needed to be explained at that point in time. The Mass Relays are just technology, and it's obvious the protheans were highly advanced.

I can concede to the idea of the beacons as a suggestion that they'd "leave" tech behind, but there's quite a difference between mental-communication storage devices and a functioning prototype of teleportation tech they didn't invent.

If one looks at in a more literal light, sure, there's an important difference, but I thought the constant idea that the protheans left behind warnings and technology, and that we only know of the Conduit thanks to the prothean beacons and speculated it was prothean technology, gave enough foundation not to make it terribly convenient or contrived.

The whole thing is dead-ended without the conduit turning into a prototype relay, which was never directly foreshadowed and remained open just long enough to squeeze the antagonist and the protagonist through it before the buzzer.  And yeah, "Saren's on the Citadel and finishing his plan, but use that soon-to-be-closed backdoor with my assistance and you can stop him" is kinda handing the protagonist the solution in a dead end.

The Normandy crew are handed plenty of other plot devices at times when it could have been a dead-end otherwise. The first beacon, the second beacon, Liara's knowledge of the protheans, Benezia's data file, the Cipher from Shiala. The writers didn't write themselves into a corner like they did with the Crucible, there's nothing wrong with its existence being convenient. 

The combination of them both can be glaring, if you look at them through certain lenses.

The only problem I have is Vigil's data file. I don't see what purpose that served, really, other than to actually give a reason for Vigil to exist other than to be something more than just the exposition device.

Don't mistake my comments as "dislike" or something I have an intense problem with (Vigil's info-dump, a conversation with the voice of an extinct species, remains my favorite moment in the trilogy for what it reveals), only that the series has been wiggling around plot-breaking devices since the first game.

I didn't assume so, but I wouldn't of minded if you did. BSN hyperbole at work. 

I poke fun at the "SPACE MAGIC" of the Thorian and mental cipher, too, but I also like those. And I still consider ME1 to be the most properly-written of the three. Just ... not without faults, some of the same things that the series has been more aggressively chided for later on. 

Consistent use of them and a consistent tone, as well as being the first in the series, all helped, I think. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 05 juin 2013 - 08:04 .

[CronoDragoon]

The Crucible/Conduit is an interesting comparison.. I would say neither on their own solves the plot, but the work done to solve the plot is chronologically switched in each case.

In ME1, you use the Conduit and then do the heavy lifting by defeating Saren, opening the arms, and defeating Sovereign.

In ME3, you attack Earth, open the beam and arms, dock the Crucible, then use the Crucible.

Neither plot device solves the conflict on its own. They both still require the characters to make the magic happen.

[Eterna]

But really seriously, who cares if something is a DEM? I don't really care.

[Nerevar-as]

Wayning_Star wrote...

Nerevar-as wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

Nerevar-as wrote...

S/he was a supporting character to other supporting characters, and the less developed one (or not developed at all).

How can you develop a main character as malleable as Shepard, though? Unless I misunderstood your sentence?

I could in ME1. His/her stance on humanity´s place on the galaxy, general attitude, and so on. In ME2 s/he was so blank (P/R aside) it could have been a FPS. In ME3 BW took to much control and felt lose to a fixed character rather than RPG.

this is interesting, but I'd guess you need to expand on it, as we're not sure what 'felt lose' relates to a fixed character.

Shepard isn't fixed, or in the gist of the story, can actually change over time, user dependent...

Felt close. I really should triple check spelling before hitting the "submit". And about my meaning, ME3 Shepard felt as having more of a fixed personality. S/he´d be sad or angry without my input in situations where it would make sense for us to decide. Jensen, Thorton or Geralt fared much better in that regard.

[Nerevar-as]

Eterna5 wrote...

So let me get this straight:

The Conduit is mentioned near the beggining of ME1, it becomes a central part of the plot as ME1 progresses, you don't know what it does until very near the end of the game and it solves the plot. You say the Conduit is good.

The Cruicible is mentioned near the very beggining of the game, as the plot progresses it becomes central to said plot, we don't know what it really does until the end of the game and it then solves the plot. You say the crucibl is a bad plot device.

Lol? 

The Conduit does something we know possible in universe.

The Crucible conjures an AI godling which throws all narrative coherence out the window and proposes a green miracle, a red tantrum, or a blue.... Control working makes sense now I think about it.

[dreamgazer]

Eterna5 wrote...

But really seriously, who cares if something is a DEM? I don't really care.

I don't care either, really, as long as they organically interact with the plot and hide their capacity to dismantle the story.

That's the case with Vigil and the conduit, however you choose to look at 'em.

[TheProtheans]

CronoDragoon wrote...

The Crucible/Conduit is an interesting comparison.. I would say neither on their own solves the plot, but the work done to solve the plot is chronologically switched in each case.

In ME1, you use the Conduit and then do the heavy lifting by defeating Saren, opening the arms, and defeating Sovereign.

In ME3, you attack Earth, open the beam and arms, dock the Crucible, then use the Crucible.

Neither plot device solves the conflict on its own. They both still require the characters to make the magic happen.

If magic is surviving hundreds of battles against enemies sure, otherwise I have no idea what magic you're talking about when referencing the conduit. 

[KaiserShep]

Pretty certain he's using the term "magic" in a more figurative sense. You know, like "working your magic" when preparing a meal, or repairing something.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 05 juin 2013 - 08:35 .

[Wayning_Star]

why cannot folks 'get' it's all about nature and the reluctant organic urge to not be "in tune" with it..lol


the catalyst is that 'natural' occurrence in nature, due to 'evolution' and that makes it ALLLLLL better!!

(i.e. , get your synthetic groove on, as soon as sentience hits the techno babble.)


edit: digression, as it could actually be too deep for us/ beyond our comprehension. But I hate to think of it like that.

Modifié par Wayning_Star, 05 juin 2013 - 08:37 .

[RaenImrahl]

New thread, same old arguments. Nothing is going to be resolved here. Locking.

BTW... image spammers have been temp banned.