191 réponses à ce sujet

[David7204]

No, it's just logic.

[mupp3tz]

Believe it or not, some people are okay with and even prefer a bit of mystery.

Anyway, why is there a debate about the Reapers on KL's thread?

Modifié par M U P P 3 T Z, 25 septembre 2013 - 06:26 .

[David7204]

It's not difficult, Hanar. For instance, I know exactly why people on BSN demand the Reapers be unexplained. Believe me, it isn't this. Merely a combination of simple hindsight bias and, ironically, a refusal to face difficult choices.

[nos_astra]

David7204 wrote...
The conversation with Vigil would not exist if there wasn't a clear intention to eventually explain the Reapers.The Reapers would not be given such mysterious yet very clearly purposeful actions if there was no intention to explain them.

There was no clear intention. They all but admitted that they had no idea where ME was going until they even began working on ME2 and these plans still changed.

Shepard was never on a quest to solve the mystery of the Reapers.

Shepard was on a quest to prevent them from entering the galaxy, then got killed and revived, teamed up with a former adversary to remove an inconsequential opponent from the equation and more by accident and with a lot of dumb luck delayed the Reapers for a few months, then was handed a solution when the inevitable happened and eventually the villain offered an odd, long-winded explanation that Shepard somehow forced out of them by virtue of being the protagonist, despite them still having the upper hand. Weird.

Every bit of information was dropped into Shepard's lap, information that had been hidden for what ... thousands of hundreds of millennia suddenly popped up while Shepard was busy gunning down mooks ... like Kai Leng (see, totally not OT!).

That's not how you explain the unexplainable.

Modifié par klarabella, 25 septembre 2013 - 06:32 .

[someguy1231]

David7204 wrote...

It's not difficult, Hanar. For instance, I know exactly why people on BSN demand the Reapers be unexplained. Believe me, it isn't this. Merely a combination of simple hindsight bias and, ironically, a refusal to face difficult choices.

We have many different reasons. Don't presume you speak for all of us. I can only speak for myself, but I can assure you I've believed they shouldn't be explained ever since I first played ME1 and saw the conversation with Sovereign on Virmire. It's not about "refusing to face difficult choices", it's about avoiding an explanation that will inevitably be disappointing and cheapen the Reapers as villains.

[David7204]

klarabella wrote...

David7204 wrote...
The conversation with Vigil would not exist if there wasn't a clear intention to eventually explain the Reapers.The Reapers would not be given such mysterious yet very clearly purposeful actions if there was no intention to explain them.

There was no clear intention. They all but admitted that they had no idea where ME was going until they even began working on ME2 and these plans still changed.

Again, utter nonsense. You fail to grasp the difference between concepts like how the Reapers would be defeated (an unknown as of ME 1) and concepts like the Reapers being confronted in general (almost certainly known as of ME 1.) The latter group includes the concept of explaining the mysterious yet incredibly purposeful actions of the Reapers. So you're wrong.

Modifié par David7204, 25 septembre 2013 - 06:37 .

[David7204]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Your logic is faulty because it would simply take one person to prove it wrong. One person to decide that the Reapers origins mattered less than the fact that they needed to be stopped after seeing how cold and powerful they are. Your logic is far from universal, despite the fact that you claim it to be universal.

There's always a handful of freaks and outliers. But overwhelmingly, such logic is solid and quite dependable.

[Made Nightwing]

You know, I hate doing this, but I'll go with David as far as confirming that the Vigil scene felt like it was set up to be a teaser to something bigger. And it was a great teaser.

BW just mucked it up later on, is all.

Modifié par Made Nightwing, 25 septembre 2013 - 06:44 .

[Ravensword]

klarabella wrote...

David7204 wrote...
The conversation with Vigil would not exist if there wasn't a clear intention to eventually explain the Reapers.The Reapers would not be given such mysterious yet very clearly purposeful actions if there was no intention to explain them.

There was no clear intention. They all but admitted that they had no idea where ME was going until they even began working on ME2 and these plans still changed.

Shepard was never on a quest to solve the mystery of the Reapers.

Shepard was on a quest to prevent them from entering the galaxy, then got killed and revived, teamed up with a former adversary to remove an inconsequential opponent from the equation and more by accident and with a lot of dumb luck delayed the Reapers for a few months, then was handed a solution when the inevitable happened and eventually the villain offered an odd, long-winded explanation that Shepard somehow forced out of them by virtue of being the protagonist, despite them still having the upper hand. Weird.

Every bit of information was dropped into Shepard's lap, information that had been hidden for what ... thousands of hundreds of millennia suddenly popped up while Shepard was busy gunning down mooks ... like Kai Leng (see, totally not OT!).

That's not how you explain the unexplainable.

Well, obviously. After all, Shepard is the Second Coming of Christ.

[Fixers0]

Everything would make for a better Kai leng, as pretty much everything about him is as bad as an antgonist can get.

[nos_astra]

David7204 wrote...
Again, utter nonsense. You fail to grasp the difference between concepts like how the Reapers would be defeated (an unknown as of ME 1) and concepts like the Reapers being confronted in general (almost certainly known as of ME 1.) The latter group includes the concept of explaining the mysterious yet incredibly purposeful actions of the Reapers. So you're wrong.

So, when you say "clear intention" (as to what the Reapers origins, motives andweaknesses are) you actually mean "vague idea" (that Shepard will at some point confront and defeat them)?

It is known that they had no idea how to conclude Mass Effect and the Reapers motives changed a lot from their original incarnation. Karpyshyn probably wanted to give some sort of explanation eventually ... but what and how and how comprehensive was completely up in the air. How that is "utter nonsense" is a mystery to me ... if anything a little misunderstanding.

You really need to learn how to stick to the words' actual meaning and stop with the hyperbole.

Modifié par klarabella, 25 septembre 2013 - 07:04 .

[wolfhowwl]

klarabella wrote...

David7204 wrote...
The conversation with Vigil would not exist if there wasn't a clear intention to eventually explain the Reapers.The Reapers would not be given such mysterious yet very clearly purposeful actions if there was no intention to explain them.

There was no clear intention. They all but admitted that they had no idea where ME was going until they even began working on ME2 and these plans still changed.

Shepard was never on a quest to solve the mystery of the Reapers.

Shepard was on a quest to prevent them from entering the galaxy, then got killed and revived, teamed up with a former adversary to remove an inconsequential opponent from the equation and more by accident and with a lot of dumb luck delayed the Reapers for a few months, then was handed a solution when the inevitable happened and eventually the villain offered an odd, long-winded explanation that Shepard somehow forced out of them by virtue of being the protagonist, despite them still having the upper hand. Weird.

Every bit of information was dropped into Shepard's lap, information that had been hidden for what ... thousands of hundreds of millennia suddenly popped up while Shepard was busy gunning down mooks ... like Kai Leng (see, totally not OT!).

That's not how you explain the unexplainable.

Yes. Quite.

The narrative of Mass Effect is a mess to put it kindly. So many self-inflicted injuries...

Perhaps even a good writer would have struggled to pick up the pieces after Mass Effect 2 blew up the plot, but Bioware was never more than mediocre at best (as most videogame writing is) even in their cookie-cutter "Bioware plot" which they had honed over a decade.

Modifié par wolfhowwl, 25 septembre 2013 - 07:06 .

[Hey]

StreetMagic wrote...

My brother looks (and even acts a little) like Kai Leng, so this adds to my annoyance with the character. :happy:

haha.  my cousin is totally kai lang.  god i wanted to kill him virtually....

[David7204]

Such utter laughable nonsense. Is that why Shepard goes to Virmire, Feros, and Noveria? Is that why Shepard only learned about the Reapers explicitly once on Ilos?

[David7204]

klarabella wrote...

David7204 wrote...
Again, utter nonsense. You fail to grasp the difference between concepts like how the Reapers would be defeated (an unknown as of ME 1) and concepts like the Reapers being confronted in general (almost certainly known as of ME 1.) The latter group includes the concept of explaining the mysterious yet incredibly purposeful actions of the Reapers. So you're wrong.

So, when you say "clear intention" (as to what the Reapers origins, motives andweaknesses are) you actually mean "vague idea" (that Shepard will at some point confront and defeat them)?

It is known that they had no idea how to conclude Mass Effect and the Reapers motives changed a lot from their original incarnation. Karpyshyn wanted to give some sort of explanation eventually ... but what and how was completely up in the air. How that is "utter nonsense" is a mystery to me.

You really need to learn how to stick to the words' actual meaning and stop with the hyperbole.

No, I mean clear intention. As in 'there was a clear intention for Shepard to eventually fight the Reapers on a large scale.' As in, 'there was a clear intention to eventually explain the motives and actions of the Reapers.' You don't seem to grasp that the how is irrelavent. The important point is that it was very clearly intended in some incarnation.

[nos_astra]

David7204 wrote...
No, I mean clear intention. As in 'there was a clear intention for Shepard to eventually fight the Reapers on a large scale.' As in, 'there was a clear intention to eventually explain the motives and actions of the Reapers.'

These things are not identical. If Bioware thought it was that may be a reason why ME's plot failed in my eyes.

David7204 wrote...
You don't seem to grasp that the how is irrelavent. The important point is that it was very clearly intended in some incarnation.

What you don't seem to grasp is that when you want to explain the motives of a formerly incomprehensible and vastly superior enemy the how is your plot.

Bioware obviously thought how was irrelevant, too, which is what got them into the mess. They kept the protagonist busy with action (like Kai Leng, see still on topic!) and occasionally had a side character inform him that information on the Reapers had just been recovered, somehow, somewhere or entirely by accident.

[David7204]

What's irrelevant is your very silly post. The issue at hand is that there was very clearly significant foreshadowing present in ME 1 very heavily suggesting the Reapers would ultimately be unexplained. Your proclamation that 'there was no clear intention' is a delusion and nothing else.

[Hey]

 check this out

https://i.chzbgr.com...4928/h3AF6DC64/

Modifié par Festae9, 25 septembre 2013 - 07:33 .