61 réponses à ce sujet

[elrofrost]

BasilKarlo wrote...

ioannisdenton wrote...

But the reapes are over-over-outnumbering Leviathans if you take into consideration that the catalyst's experiment has been going for billions of years..

First off, I don't think billions of years is at all accurate. I may be wrong, but I don't think it's been stated anywhere that thr Reapers have been reaping for that long. That would work out to something like 40,000 individual Reapers(at least) and if that were the case they could have completely ravaged every civilized planet and race in the galaxy in a matter of days or even hours. Second, the Leviathans don't even have to be anywhere near Reapers to kill them. They have balls filled with magic that kill Reapers for them.

So every 50,000 years and there are about 1000 Repaers.. so that means 5 million years.

Also if you have the Leviathan DLC they talk about their forfathers being the "apex" race in the galaxy. Which of course is impossible. The universe is at least 7 billion years old (as far as we know). Obviouslly something came before the Leviathans. Not that that matters, 5 million years is a long time. 

What I find inresting; coming to this series only a few months ago - everyone and I mean EVERY gamer knows about the terrible ending. Even non-gamers know about it. This should be a serious concern for Bioware/EA. Even a year and a half later I mention that I'm playing Mass Effect and people just goan about the ending.

I hope the new Dragon Age deals with this. 

Modifié par elrofrost, 22 juin 2013 - 11:14 .

[Volkai7]

BioReaperEA wrote...

All the speculation and criticism can be summed up to bad writing.

All writers of worth start a story by knowing its ending. Why, you may ask, because of this exact reason. People get confused because of events that don't support the ending and you quickly slap something together that isn't satisfying. When you know your ending, you can invent, imagine...add substance to the begining and middle to support the ending.

Inherently untrue. Many series have been started little more than a basic premise or set of characters that have gone on to be great shows or comics or web-things.

Starting a story without knowing the ending changes the dynamic of writing and executing it, but it does not mean the story will be inherently bad any more than writing the ending before the rest of the story makes it inherently good (hint: it doesn't.)

[Mr. MannlyMan]

Volkai7 wrote...

BioReaperEA wrote...

All the speculation and criticism can be summed up to bad writing.

All writers of worth start a story by knowing its ending. Why, you may ask, because of this exact reason. People get confused because of events that don't support the ending and you quickly slap something together that isn't satisfying. When you know your ending, you can invent, imagine...add substance to the begining and middle to support the ending.

Inherently untrue. Many series have been started little more than a basic premise or set of characters that have gone on to be great shows or comics or web-things.

Starting a story without knowing the ending changes the dynamic of writing and executing it, but it does not mean the story will be inherently bad any more than writing the ending before the rest of the story makes it inherently good (hint: it doesn't.)

Sorry, but the nature of most TV and comic series is VERY different from that of a 3-part trilogy. They rely on episodic, self-contained stories that are loosely linked together by a persistent cast and setting. The reason for this is because the longevity of a series is next to impossible to predict from the outset, thus an episodic format is both logical and allows the writers much more flexibility.

A 3-part trilogy is much easier to plan from the beginning. Now, we're talking about a singular story arc that bridges all 3 games and a group of antagonists that is present in all 3 games. For a writer to leave the conclusion, the main antagonists' motivation (ie. the driving point of the plot) AND the protagonist's final evolution in metaphorical limbo until the very last stage of writing... that's VERY , VERY poor form. Make no mistake.

We know they at least had an idea for the Reapers' motivation and the final choice. We know they tried to foreshadow them in ME2. So, why did the writing team suddenly abandon them and the themes they represented in ME3?

[Bourne Endeavor]

BasilKarlo wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

1 billion years doesn't necessarily mean 20,000 Reapers. Some cycles may have been busts.

What, the Reapers just threw up their flippers and said "Good effort, we'll get 'em next time. Let's take 50,000 years to cool off and clear our heads"?

No, but if they only process one species and thus create only a single Capital Reaper per cycle. Odds are near inevitable they would have lost numbers along the way, as species fought back. I highly doubt every cycle went flawless until the current one.

[MACharlie1]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

BasilKarlo wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

1 billion years doesn't necessarily mean 20,000 Reapers. Some cycles may have been busts.

What, the Reapers just threw up their flippers and said "Good effort, we'll get 'em next time. Let's take 50,000 years to cool off and clear our heads"?

No, but if they only process one species and thus create only a single Capital Reaper per cycle. Odds are near inevitable they would have lost numbers along the way, as species fought back. I highly doubt every cycle went flawless until the current one.

It's been established (ala ME2) that the Prothean cycle was a bust and no capital Reapers were created from them. Probably wasn't the first. 

[AlanC9]

Mr. MannlyMan wrote...

We know they at least had an idea for the Reapers' motivation and the final choice. We know they tried to foreshadow them in ME2. So, why did the writing team suddenly abandon them and the themes they represented in ME3?

Because they didn't like how it worked? The Reapers being the good guys trying to save the universe isn't something that would have been too popular. That's not a problem for the ending we got since the Reapers can be simply wrong about synthetics.

It's not like they had the Dark Energy idea when they wrote ME1, anyway. It's something they fooled around with during ME2 without really committing to it. They had two NPCs mention it, one in passing.

[JMTolan]

I find Drew's comment comparing these ideas to Vaporware in the OP link highly relevant to basically this entire topic.

Everything sounds good zoomed out far enough in hypothetical. All of these other ideas could have turned out to be worse or equal to what we have as easily as better. This really only highlights the issues of switching writers mid-series, something I assume Bioware is aware of.

-Tolan

[Reever]

I said from the beginning that I liked the premise of the dark energy plot (like many others), but the first info we got about it showed it to be even more contrived and illogical than what we got.

What I read now does make sense...I think at least. Would have been cool to be able to just destroy the Reapers and try to save the universe on our own (or not try it at all) or to sacrifice humanity for this purpose...

[Beerfish]

The ending general idea of the what the Reapers were doing was fine with me.

Having it present by the Bratalyst was a horrible idea.

Having three chocies that all ended in Shepards demise more or less was horrible.

The game had some angst, sacrifice and loss re companions and it did not need the now cliche protagonist bites the dust ending.

[elrofrost]

I dont mind Shepard dying. Especially if you got a low score. What I don't like is that it *really* doesn't matter how you play the game. Or your score. The ending is the same. Just the choices of colors change. With a low score you get Destroy (with the most damage); a bit higher Control and Destroy (with a little less damage) - and so on. Any choice Shepard dies.

But wait. Along comes the Extended Cut and Bioware throws in some cheap scene of Shepard taking a breath, if you choose Destroy with a perfect game. Despite the Bratalyst saying Shepard would die due to his body being rebuilt. So wait.. now that's bs also? I mean is anything in the game considered at the end?

It's like the folk who wrote the ending didn't play the game. They just reacted to whatever. Maybe it was pressure to release the game; then pressure to respond to the out-cry from us fans. I don't know.

Despite my disappointment over the endings I still love the games. And the lore.

[SilJeff]

@elrofrost umm, the EC didn't add the breath scene. All it did was make easier to get (by lowering the EMS)

[Eralrik]

Shepard's breath scene how do we even know if it's not Shepard's last breath as Star Brat mentioned Shepard would probably die also as Shepard is mostly a cyborg, seeing as how most of Shepard's body was in shambles at the beginning of ME2 in the lab. <Kinda like the Six Million Dollar man we get the 6 Billion dollar Shepard>

As I've mentioned in other posts Bioware wanted a game that would be talked about for years to come and they got that with ME3 in spades, just not quite the way they were hoping.