435 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

And, per war-asset #s, the hanar navy is only worth a hair more than the Spectre squad anyway. LOL...

That's my biggest problem with the whole WA system. There are only a few places where a bad decision can screw your point total.

[o Ventus]

ruggly wrote...

Except that it doesn't see it as destroying organics.  From it's point of view, it's preserving our (and I loathe this term) "essence" in Reapers.  So the culture and history isn't truly lost, just the individuals who made up those people. Problem is, we like to keep our individual forms. So from our point of view, yes, we see it as destruction and murder.

Except now this is also bull**it. No matter how the Catalyst wants to sugarcoat his repeated genocide, it's still genocide, regardless of its POV.

If I killed every single person living in sub-Saharan Africa, ground the remains into a paste and poured it into a gigantic body cast, I'm not preserving anything about them, regardless of what I might say to justify myself afterwards.

[AlanC9]

Xenite wrote...

Let's be honest, story development wise Mass Effect 3 was a complete mess. The entire game of Mass Effect 2 is setting up the clear dark matter storyline, from start to finish..

The entire game? You mean Tali's RM and the Gianna sidequest?

[ruggly]

o Ventus wrote...

ruggly wrote...

Except that it doesn't see it as destroying organics.  From it's point of view, it's preserving our (and I loathe this term) "essence" in Reapers.  So the culture and history isn't truly lost, just the individuals who made up those people. Problem is, we like to keep our individual forms. So from our point of view, yes, we see it as destruction and murder.

Except now this is also bull**it. No matter how the Catalyst wants to sugarcoat his repeated genocide, it's still genocide, regardless of its POV.

If I killed every single person living in sub-Saharan Africa, ground the remains into a paste and poured it into a gigantic body cast, I'm not preserving anything about them, regardless of what I might say to justify myself afterwards.

I totally agree, but it's what we're stuck with.  The whole "essence of a species" is complete bullsh*t.

[JamesFaith]

AlanC9 wrote...

Xenite wrote...

Let's be honest, story development wise Mass Effect 3 was a complete mess. The entire game of Mass Effect 2 is setting up the clear dark matter storyline, from start to finish..

The entire game? You mean Tali's RM and the Gianna sidequest?

 

Don't forget on Veetor. During his mad mumbling he said "dark energy" once. 

Modifié par JamesFaith, 06 juillet 2013 - 04:39 .

[AlanC9]

ruggly wrote...

I totally agree, but it's what we're stuck with.  The whole "essence of a species" is complete bullsh*t.

Yep. The Reapers are wrong. Amazing how the bad guys turned out to be wrong, isn't it?

@ JamesFaith: OMG! It is the whole game! 

[ruggly]

AlanC9 wrote...

ruggly wrote...

I totally agree, but it's what we're stuck with.  The whole "essence of a species" is complete bullsh*t.

Yep. The Reapers are wrong. Amazing how the bad guys turned out to be wrong, isn't it?

@ JamesFaith: OMG! It is the whole game! 

Totally amazing, indeed.

[nos_astra]

StreetMagic wrote...
Drew: "The Reapers kept wiping out organic life because organics would eventually evolve to where they were using biotics and dark energy, and that was an entropic effect that potentially was going to hasten the end of the universe. And being immortal beings, that is something they did not want to see."

And yet the Reapers left behind Mass Effect technology to ensure civilizations would develop along the paths they desire.

Cue elaborate handwave why the Reapers risk more dark energy build-up to prevent dark energy build-up.

Modifié par klarabella, 06 juillet 2013 - 06:49 .

[Bill Casey]

JamesFaith wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Xenite wrote...

Let's be honest, story development wise Mass Effect 3 was a complete mess. The entire game of Mass Effect 2 is setting up the clear dark matter storyline, from start to finish..

The entire game? You mean Tali's RM and the Gianna sidequest?

 

Don't forget on Veetor. During his mad mumbling he said "dark energy" once. 

And TIM sitting in full view of a dying star...

[KaiserShep]

TIM's view of a dying star doesn't mean anything unless its rate of exhaustion is noted like that of Haelstrom's. At any given time, millions of stars are dying.

[JamesFaith]

Bill Casey wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Xenite wrote...

Let's be honest, story development wise Mass Effect 3 was a complete mess. The entire game of Mass Effect 2 is setting up the clear dark matter storyline, from start to finish..

The entire game? You mean Tali's RM and the Gianna sidequest?

 

Don't forget on Veetor. During his mad mumbling he said "dark energy" once. 

And TIM sitting in full view of a dying star...

And....?

Was there ever said that all red and blue giants are result of dark energy mumbo-jumbo?

By this logic I can claim that every robot shooting on me was hint of organic vs. synthetic "main theme".

[Big Bad]

I dislike the catalyst for many of the same reasons that other people have mentioned, but the biggest by far is that it tells my character something (that the entirety of organic life in the galaxy will inevitably be wiped out by synthetics) that I don't agree with AT ALL.  I find this statement to be both absurd and thematically incongruent with the overall series.  But I am forced to conclude that the game wishes me to agree with this statement because it gives me no meaningful way to register my disagreement with it.

[FreshRevenge]

ruggly wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

ruggly wrote...

Except that it doesn't see it as destroying organics.  From it's point of view, it's preserving our (and I loathe this term) "essence" in Reapers.  So the culture and history isn't truly lost, just the individuals who made up those people. Problem is, we like to keep our individual forms. So from our point of view, yes, we see it as destruction and murder.

Except now this is also bull**it. No matter how the Catalyst wants to sugarcoat his repeated genocide, it's still genocide, regardless of its POV.

If I killed every single person living in sub-Saharan Africa, ground the remains into a paste and poured it into a gigantic body cast, I'm not preserving anything about them, regardless of what I might say to justify myself afterwards.

I totally agree, but it's what we're stuck with.  The whole "essence of a species" is complete bullsh*t.

I double agree with you guys. See a machine isn't an emotional being, so it can not make decisions based on moral grounds. Basically it doesn't think about the emotional impact that their harvesting has on the galaxy. So I still keep wiping the reapers out. Even though Edi and the Geth were my allies, they still had the reaper codes that made them who they were. And anything that had reaper codes shouldn't be trusted. 
Also on the note of destroying Edi. Joker falls in love with a machine. Do you know how that sounds. I am actually sparing him a world of grief. She would outlive Joker; they can't have children; she isn't organic. She wouldn't not have the mothering instincts that a natural woman would have. So it is better that the romance ended and he would move on and find someone real! Being that he was the pilot of the famous Shepard, he could have women lining at the door for him.
My question is was the litttle boy you see in the beginning really the catalyst playing tricks on Shepard's mind.
Also why couldn't the starchild explain who started the crucible?

[FlamingBoy]

KaiserShep wrote...

TIM's view of a dying star doesn't mean anything unless its rate of exhaustion is noted like that of Haelstrom's. At any given time, millions of stars are dying.

However the writers choosed to put him in front of a dying one, the writers intended to foreshadow it with these scenes.

The "symbolism" is just to obvious.

[Bill Casey]

Big Bad wrote...

I dislike the catalyst for many of the same reasons that other people have mentioned, but the biggest by far is that it tells my character something (that the entirety of organic life in the galaxy will inevitably be wiped out by synthetics) that I don't agree with AT ALL.  I find this statement to be both absurd and thematically incongruent with the overall series.  But I am forced to conclude that the game wishes me to agree with this statement because it gives me no meaningful way to register my disagreement with it.

This...

[JamesFaith]

FlamingBoy wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

TIM's view of a dying star doesn't mean anything unless its rate of exhaustion is noted like that of Haelstrom's. At any given time, millions of stars are dying.

However the writers choosed to put him in front of a dying one, the writers intended to foreshadow it with these scenes.

The "symbolism" is just to obvious.

Or maybe red giant is just good looking background for someone like TIM?

Star similar to Sol or white dwarf don't look so good as red/blue giant in background.  

Symbolism is nice thing but sometimes spoon is really here.

Modifié par JamesFaith, 07 juillet 2013 - 01:31 .

[Sumthing]

The starchild creates plotholes that previously didn't exist. Not only in ME3, but also in the previous games. In Mass Effect 1, why didn't starchild just let the reapers in himself? In Mass Effect 2, why didn't Star Child let the reapers in rather than have the reapers take the long way over?

[christrek1982]

StreetMagic wrote...

Because the game is called Mass Effect.. there was always a double meaning to that. One which tied into the original dark energy ending, I'm guessing. The current ending comes out of nowhere. It could have worked better elsewhere though.

yeh that is how I felt when I saw it for the first time it just felt out of place and a way to railroad the player. it felt cheap and rushed.

[Cheviot]

Sumthing wrote...

The starchild creates plotholes that previously didn't exist. Not only in ME3, but also in the previous games. In Mass Effect 1, why didn't starchild just let the reapers in himself? In Mass Effect 2, why didn't Star Child let the reapers in rather than have the reapers take the long way over?

When it set up the Cycles and created the Reapers, it stacked all the odds in the Reaper's favour, made it almost impossible for them to fail.  This was so that, if they did fail, then the Catalyst would know that enough had changed in the galaxy to mean the Reapers were no longer a suitable solution.  It is only then that it gets involved.

[christrek1982]

FlamingBoy wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

TIM's view of a dying star doesn't mean anything unless its rate of exhaustion is noted like that of Haelstrom's. At any given time, millions of stars are dying.

However the writers choosed to put him in front of a dying one, the writers intended to foreshadow it with these scenes.

The "symbolism" is just to obvious.

in an interview one of the writer said it had somthing to do with making tim look powerful maybe there was more to it but that is what I remember him saying.

sorry it was two+ years ago so I don't have a link on had but I think I saw it on youtube.

[Sumthing]

Cheviot wrote...

Sumthing wrote...

The starchild creates plotholes that previously didn't exist. Not only in ME3, but also in the previous games. In Mass Effect 1, why didn't starchild just let the reapers in himself? In Mass Effect 2, why didn't Star Child let the reapers in rather than have the reapers take the long way over?

When it set up the Cycles and created the Reapers, it stacked all the odds in the Reaper's favour, made it almost impossible for them to fail.  This was so that, if they did fail, then the Catalyst would know that enough had changed in the galaxy to mean the Reapers were no longer a suitable solution.  It is only then that it gets involved.

The reapers were better as mysterious, nigh-godlike beings. Why would the Starchild even make it possible for the reapers to fail? It could have opened the Citadel relay and have been done with it.

[FlamingBoy]

JamesFaith wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

TIM's view of a dying star doesn't mean anything unless its rate of exhaustion is noted like that of Haelstrom's. At any given time, millions of stars are dying.

However the writers choosed to put him in front of a dying one, the writers intended to foreshadow it with these scenes.

The "symbolism" is just to obvious.

Or maybe red giant is just good looking background for someone like TIM?

Star similar to Sol or white dwarf don't look so good as red/blue giant in background.  

Symbolism is nice thing but sometimes spoon is really here.

its a possibility that its all a coincidence, but its unlikely

[teh DRUMPf!!]

o Ventus wrote...

ruggly wrote...

Except that it doesn't see it as destroying organics.  From it's point of view, it's preserving our (and I loathe this term) "essence" in Reapers.  So the culture and history isn't truly lost, just the individuals who made up those people. Problem is, we like to keep our individual forms. So from our point of view, yes, we see it as destruction and murder.

Except now this is also bull**it. No matter how the Catalyst wants to sugarcoat his repeated genocide, it's still genocide, regardless of its POV.

If I killed every single person living in sub-Saharan Africa, ground the remains into a paste and poured it into a gigantic body cast, I'm not preserving anything about them, regardless of what I might say to justify myself afterwards.

Keeping your individual forms is irrelevant when the Catalyst considers you doomed to extinction anyway.

Also, your analogy is a false-equivalence.

The Catalyst creates a Reaper. The Reaper is 1 life, and it preserves cultural memory. So the solution is: 1 > 0.