486 réponses à ce sujet

[Reorte]

iakus wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

@iakus:

It's interesting that you say it's popularity is because the Catalyst is left out.

Despite the fact Leviathan basically confirms the existence of a control factor, which /isn't/ the Citadel. Or does the MEHEM ignore Leviathan? Or do people who support the MEHEM ignore the existence of Leviathan?

The only acknowledgement MEHEM has for Leviathan is a fix that had to be put in because having the DLC or not affects EC, which MEHEM has to account for.  They play no other role in MEHEM.

The palyer is free to speculate on how they fit into the story.  MEHEM neither acknowledges nor denies them.  Nor the Catalyst for that matter.  Shepard simply never encounters the Starchild.  One is free to "speculate" on anything.  The Leviathan's infomation is millions of years out of date, after all

Maybe the Intelligence was corrupted/destroyed cycles ago, and the Reapers simply blindly follow its last instructions

Maybe it's a networked intelligence residing in all the Reapers, like a geth consensus

Maybe it's still standing there by the Magic Space Elevator going "Hello?  WTF is going on down there?  You gonna come up here and pick a color or what?"

Now now, that sounds rather like "Speculations for everyone!" 

[Iakus]

CronoDragoon wrote...

People who support MEHEM still support the idea of an entity controlling the Reapers, they simply believe there's no need to have a conversation with it.

Exactly

I also don't believe that Happy was meant to be ironic. But obviously the "Happiness" factor isn't the only reason people like it; I didn't claim that was so.

Again, that's jsut my opinion, but this descriptor gives it weight:

- You will see your Shepard reunited with his crew (and even some interaction unique to your LI if the LI is part of the Normandy crew). While they don't exactly have a party, now it is a real bitter-sweet ending with the emphasis on "sweet" rather than on "bitter"

[Iakus]

Reorte wrote...

iakus wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

@iakus:

It's interesting that you say it's popularity is because the Catalyst is left out.

Despite the fact Leviathan basically confirms the existence of a control factor, which /isn't/ the Citadel. Or does the MEHEM ignore Leviathan? Or do people who support the MEHEM ignore the existence of Leviathan?

The only acknowledgement MEHEM has for Leviathan is a fix that had to be put in because having the DLC or not affects EC, which MEHEM has to account for.  They play no other role in MEHEM.

The palyer is free to speculate on how they fit into the story.  MEHEM neither acknowledges nor denies them.  Nor the Catalyst for that matter.  Shepard simply never encounters the Starchild.  One is free to "speculate" on anything.  The Leviathan's infomation is millions of years out of date, after all

Maybe the Intelligence was corrupted/destroyed cycles ago, and the Reapers simply blindly follow its last instructions

Maybe it's a networked intelligence residing in all the Reapers, like a geth consensus

Maybe it's still standing there by the Magic Space Elevator going "Hello?  WTF is going on down there?  You gonna come up here and pick a color or what?"

Now now, that sounds rather like "Speculations for everyone!" 

Speculations I can live with

[Reorte]

KwangtungTiger wrote...

I truly believe it came down to Bioware understanding that most people were going to choose Destroy and had to some how make that a harder choice. By adding the Geth and Edi to the destruction in their minds at least, it was an effective way to alter the gamers mind set.

The fact that Shepard lives in high EMS, they could have easily worked the Geth and Edi into it also. But given my first statement that is no way it was going to happen.

That's why I've got a problem with it. It was shoved in for that reason alone, irrespective of whether or not it made sense and therefore simply doesn't work for me. It's like having a story where the main character needs to be in New York for one scene, then for another one set five minutes later he needs to be in Sydney, so he's damned well going to be in Sydney.

[wright1978]

KwangtungTiger wrote...

I truly believe it came down to Bioware understanding that most people were going to choose Destroy and had to some how make that a harder choice. By adding the Geth and Edi to the destruction in their minds at least, it was an effective way to alter the gamers mind set.

The fact that Shepard lives in high EMS, they could have easily worked the Geth and Edi into it also. But given my first statement that is no way it was going to happen.

In the end (for me atleast) didn't matter because the Geth were already destroyed in my main playthrough.

Well i think they were desperate to do a twist ending. Hence pushing destroy as the only viable ending introduced via the narrative until at the last second they reveal the twist evil consequence. PLayers were then supposed to give the bratalyst a big sloppy french kiss and run off into the beam. They didn't expect the anger at the atrocious delivery, atrocious delivery mechanism & large distaste for how synthesis was presented.

[JamesFaith]

 @Reorte

My post was just example of type of critic which isn't result of technical restriction of modding, but result of modders ideas.

You can disagree, you can agree, it doesn't matter, because this debate wasn't about EDI and Geth, it was about validity of critic of MEHEM. 

[Reorte]

JamesFaith wrote...

 @Reorte

My post was just example of type of critic which isn't result of technical restriction of modding, but result of modders ideas.

You can disagree, you can agree, it doesn't matter, because this debate wasn't about EDI and Geth, it was about validity of critic of MEHEM. 

But the point is that it is down to the technical restrictions since they impose significant restrictions on the ideas that can be made to work. Sometimes that might involve removing stuff that makes no sense even if that shifts the mood somewhat if it's not possible to replace the removed stuff with something better.

[KwangtungTiger]

Reorte wrote...

KwangtungTiger wrote...

I truly believe it came down to Bioware understanding that most people were going to choose Destroy and had to some how make that a harder choice. By adding the Geth and Edi to the destruction in their minds at least, it was an effective way to alter the gamers mind set.

The fact that Shepard lives in high EMS, they could have easily worked the Geth and Edi into it also. But given my first statement that is no way it was going to happen.

That's why I've got a problem with it. It was shoved in for that reason alone, irrespective of whether or not it made sense and therefore simply doesn't work for me. It's like having a story where the main character needs to be in New York for one scene, then for another one set five minutes later he needs to be in Sydney, so he's damned well going to be in Sydney.

Then you have to ask yourself this,

If high EMS Destroy wipes out the Geth and Edi. Why wouldn't Control allow you to actually control the Geth and Edi? What is the real difference in the beams other than the color? The "Red" beams doesn't discriminate but the "Blue" one does?

[RiouHotaru]

iakus wrote...

Reorte wrote...

iakus wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

@iakus:

It's interesting that you say it's popularity is because the Catalyst is left out.

Despite the fact Leviathan basically confirms the existence of a control factor, which /isn't/ the Citadel. Or does the MEHEM ignore Leviathan? Or do people who support the MEHEM ignore the existence of Leviathan?

The only acknowledgement MEHEM has for Leviathan is a fix that had to be put in because having the DLC or not affects EC, which MEHEM has to account for.  They play no other role in MEHEM.

The palyer is free to speculate on how they fit into the story.  MEHEM neither acknowledges nor denies them.  Nor the Catalyst for that matter.  Shepard simply never encounters the Starchild.  One is free to "speculate" on anything.  The Leviathan's infomation is millions of years out of date, after all

Maybe the Intelligence was corrupted/destroyed cycles ago, and the Reapers simply blindly follow its last instructions

Maybe it's a networked intelligence residing in all the Reapers, like a geth consensus

Maybe it's still standing there by the Magic Space Elevator going "Hello?  WTF is going on down there?  You gonna come up here and pick a color or what?"

Now now, that sounds rather like "Speculations for everyone!" 

Speculations I can live with

Hm.  I understand the point you're trying to make, but to me personally that feels a bit...what's the word.  It's not cheap or contrived.  Because I'm not trying to be that negative.

But it seems strange to treat two very distinct portions of the game as either not existing at all (in the case of the Catalyst), or as mere speculation (Leviathan).  But then the MEHEM is headcanon anyway.  Maybe I'm just not as engrossed in idea of fan ideas replacing canon to understand.

Not to say your stance is less important or not worthwhile.  Just that it's a mystery to me. 

[Iakus]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Hm.  I understand the point you're trying to make, but to me personally that feels a bit...what's the word.  It's not cheap or contrived.  Because I'm not trying to be that negative.

But it seems strange to treat two very distinct portions of the game as either not existing at all (in the case of the Catalyst), or as mere speculation (Leviathan).  But then the MEHEM is headcanon anyway.  Maybe I'm just not as engrossed in idea of fan ideas replacing canon to understand.

Not to say your stance is less important or not worthwhile.  Just that it's a mystery to me. 

The Catalyst can still exist if you want it to.  But Shepard never meets it.  FOr my own interpretation, I go by Vendetta's declaration:  The Catalyst is the Citadel.  And it ends there.

And personally, the Reapers' origins were never important to me.  In the end, what does it matter?  Our survival depends on stoppping the Reapers, not in understanding them

[JamesFaith]

Reorte wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...

 @Reorte

My post was just example of type of critic which isn't result of technical restriction of modding, but result of modders ideas.

You can disagree, you can agree, it doesn't matter, because this debate wasn't about EDI and Geth, it was about validity of critic of MEHEM. 

But the point is that it is down to the technical restrictions since they impose significant restrictions on the ideas that can be made to work. Sometimes that might involve removing stuff that makes no sense even if that shifts the mood somewhat if it's not possible to replace the removed stuff with something better.

You are purposedly generalizing.

MrFrob had two option - let EDI and Geth dead / erase their death and replace it with new slides.

This was purely his choice because both options were technically possible. And reasoning behind it and result of this choice is valid subject of critique. 

[Reorte]

KwangtungTiger wrote...

Reorte wrote...

KwangtungTiger wrote...

I truly believe it came down to Bioware understanding that most people were going to choose Destroy and had to some how make that a harder choice. By adding the Geth and Edi to the destruction in their minds at least, it was an effective way to alter the gamers mind set.

The fact that Shepard lives in high EMS, they could have easily worked the Geth and Edi into it also. But given my first statement that is no way it was going to happen.

That's why I've got a problem with it. It was shoved in for that reason alone, irrespective of whether or not it made sense and therefore simply doesn't work for me. It's like having a story where the main character needs to be in New York for one scene, then for another one set five minutes later he needs to be in Sydney, so he's damned well going to be in Sydney.

Then you have to ask yourself this,

If high EMS Destroy wipes out the Geth and Edi. Why wouldn't Control allow you to actually control the Geth and Edi? What is the real difference in the beams other than the color? The "Red" beams doesn't discriminate but the "Blue" one does?

Well yes, that just emphasises my point that there's no good reason for it to destroy them. As far as discrimination goes it's misleading, since it would be far, far harder to make something which would target the geth and EDI as well as the Reapers, in both Control and Destroy. The only way Destroy could sensibly not discriminate would be if it simply wiped out absolutely everything.

[Reorte]

JamesFaith wrote...

Reorte wrote...


But the point is that it is down to the technical restrictions since they impose significant restrictions on the ideas that can be made to work. Sometimes that might involve removing stuff that makes no sense even if that shifts the mood somewhat if it's not possible to replace the removed stuff with something better.

You are purposedly generalizing.

MrFrob had two option - let EDI and Geth dead / erase their death and replace it with new slides.

This was purely his choice because both options were technically possible. And reasoning behind it and result of this choice is valid subject of critique. 

Yes, you can either leave in a nonsensical contrivance or not.

[wright1978]

KwangtungTiger wrote...

Then you have to ask yourself this,

If high EMS Destroy wipes out the Geth and Edi. Why wouldn't Control allow you to actually control the Geth and Edi? What is the real difference in the beams other than the color? The "Red" beams doesn't discriminate but the "Blue" one does?

Indeed

[KwangtungTiger]

Reorte wrote...

KwangtungTiger wrote...

Reorte wrote...

KwangtungTiger wrote...

I truly believe it came down to Bioware understanding that most people were going to choose Destroy and had to some how make that a harder choice. By adding the Geth and Edi to the destruction in their minds at least, it was an effective way to alter the gamers mind set.

The fact that Shepard lives in high EMS, they could have easily worked the Geth and Edi into it also. But given my first statement that is no way it was going to happen.

That's why I've got a problem with it. It was shoved in for that reason alone, irrespective of whether or not it made sense and therefore simply doesn't work for me. It's like having a story where the main character needs to be in New York for one scene, then for another one set five minutes later he needs to be in Sydney, so he's damned well going to be in Sydney.

Then you have to ask yourself this,

If high EMS Destroy wipes out the Geth and Edi. Why wouldn't Control allow you to actually control the Geth and Edi? What is the real difference in the beams other than the color? The "Red" beams doesn't discriminate but the "Blue" one does?

Well yes, that just emphasises my point that there's no good reason for it to destroy them. As far as discrimination goes it's misleading, since it would be far, far harder to make something which would target the geth and EDI as well as the Reapers, in both Control and Destroy. The only way Destroy could sensibly not discriminate would be if it simply wiped out absolutely everything.

Sorry, I need to work on that.

My point was to emphasize yours........

[wright1978]

Reorte wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...

Reorte wrote...


But the point is that it is down to the technical restrictions since they impose significant restrictions on the ideas that can be made to work. Sometimes that might involve removing stuff that makes no sense even if that shifts the mood somewhat if it's not possible to replace the removed stuff with something better.

You are purposedly generalizing.

MrFrob had two option - let EDI and Geth dead / erase their death and replace it with new slides.

This was purely his choice because both options were technically possible. And reasoning behind it and result of this choice is valid subject of critique. 

Yes, you can either leave in a nonsensical contrivance or not.

Yep why leave in something you can't explain or introduce beforehand.

[RiouHotaru]

iakus wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

Hm.  I understand the point you're trying to make, but to me personally that feels a bit...what's the word.  It's not cheap or contrived.  Because I'm not trying to be that negative.

But it seems strange to treat two very distinct portions of the game as either not existing at all (in the case of the Catalyst), or as mere speculation (Leviathan).  But then the MEHEM is headcanon anyway.  Maybe I'm just not as engrossed in idea of fan ideas replacing canon to understand.

Not to say your stance is less important or not worthwhile.  Just that it's a mystery to me. 

The Catalyst can still exist if you want it to.  But Shepard never meets it.  FOr my own interpretation, I go by Vendetta's declaration:  The Catalyst is the Citadel.  And it ends there.

And personally, the Reapers' origins were never important to me.  In the end, what does it matter?  Our survival depends on stoppping the Reapers, not in understanding them

To use an argument Chrono used in my thread about the EC, understanding the Reapers is important on a meta-level.  Sure, in-universe, the only real interest you have is in how to destroy them.  Which makes sense.  But I feel for the player, understanding where they come from and why they exist adds a depth to the setting you can't get otherwise.

That and I was never, ever a fan of the whole "unknowable enemy" thing.  But to each their own!

[Reorte]

RiouHotaru wrote...

To use an argument Chrono used in my thread about the EC, understanding the Reapers is important on a meta-level.  Sure, in-universe, the only real interest you have is in how to destroy them.  Which makes sense.  But I feel for the player, understanding where they come from and why they exist adds a depth to the setting you can't get otherwise.

That and I was never, ever a fan of the whole "unknowable enemy" thing.  But to each their own!

I see where you're coming from. "Unknowable enemies" just feel like a cop-out - it's saying that there isn't really any explanation for them. They only work when you can believe that there is a reason, we just don't know what it is. There always has to be a reason. Unfortunately it's very rare indeed to be able to create anything whose menace can survive the reveal completely intact. So knowing what we ended up knowing about the Reapers it's easy to say that it would've been better if we never had, but if that had happened it would've left a lot of the same people annoyed.

[JamesFaith]

Reorte wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...

You are purposedly generalizing.

MrFrob had two option - let EDI and Geth dead / erase their death and replace it with new slides.

This was purely his choice because both options were technically possible. And reasoning behind it and result of this choice is valid subject of critique. 

Yes, you can either leave in a nonsensical contrivance or not.

You keep missing point. 

I don't advocate nature of this chance (as you are constantly trying to push me and using it as counter argument) I advocate right to judge this change, which wasn't purely result of technical restriction, but result of modder decision to alter ending. 

You can judge it both positive and negative, it doesn't matter. My point was all that time that you can judge it and that negative critique of such decision =/= hate.

[wright1978]

RiouHotaru wrote...

To use an argument Chrono used in my thread about the EC, understanding the Reapers is important on a meta-level.  Sure, in-universe, the only real interest you have is in how to destroy them.  Which makes sense.  But I feel for the player, understanding where they come from and why they exist adds a depth to the setting you can't get otherwise.

That and I was never, ever a fan of the whole "unknowable enemy" thing.  But to each their own!

Knowing reaper motives wasn't a necessity, though i'll agree if they'd been delivered well it would be preferrable over 'unknowable enemy'. Given a choice as it exists now i'll bite the hand off any options that leaves it. unknown

[Reorte]

JamesFaith wrote...

Reorte wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...

You are purposedly generalizing.

MrFrob had two option - let EDI and Geth dead / erase their death and replace it with new slides.

This was purely his choice because both options were technically possible. And reasoning behind it and result of this choice is valid subject of critique. 

Yes, you can either leave in a nonsensical contrivance or not.

You keep missing point. 

I don't advocate nature of this chance (as you are constantly trying to push me and using it as counter argument) I advocate right to judge this change, which wasn't purely result of technical restriction, but result of modder decision to alter ending. 

You can judge it both positive and negative, it doesn't matter. My point was all that time that you can judge it and that negative critique of such decision =/= hate.

Sure, you can judge whether it was the right decision or not but that judgement has to take into account the circumstances, which is my point which I feel you keep missing.

[RiouHotaru]

Reorte wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

To use an argument Chrono used in my thread about the EC, understanding the Reapers is important on a meta-level.  Sure, in-universe, the only real interest you have is in how to destroy them.  Which makes sense.  But I feel for the player, understanding where they come from and why they exist adds a depth to the setting you can't get otherwise.

That and I was never, ever a fan of the whole "unknowable enemy" thing.  But to each their own!

I see where you're coming from. "Unknowable enemies" just feel like a cop-out - it's saying that there isn't really any explanation for them. They only work when you can believe that there is a reason, we just don't know what it is. There always has to be a reason. Unfortunately it's very rare indeed to be able to create anything whose menace can survive the reveal completely intact. So knowing what we ended up knowing about the Reapers it's easy to say that it would've been better if we never had, but if that had happened it would've left a lot of the same people annoyed.

And I agree, it's very rare that any sense of unease or menace can remain when you know what your enemy is and what they want.  It's takes a really, REALLY imposing enemy to retain that.  But I feel the reveal of what they were and why they did was nice.  Because it (at least among my friends) brought up some really interesting conversations and discussion.

The idea of organic/synthetic conflict may not be new, but I liked how ME took it to a logical extreme.

[JamesFaith]

Reorte wrote...

Sure, you can judge whether it was the right decision or not but that judgement has to take into account the circumstances, which is my point which I feel you keep missing.

 

You spoke about technical restriction of some changes.

Reorte wrote...
But the point is that it is down to the technical restrictions since they impose significant restrictions on the ideas that can be made to work. 

Such restrictions are objective. By your opinion "nonsensical contrievances" aren't technical restriction. 

[Giantdeathrobot]

Reorte wrote...

The problem with EDI and the geth dying is that there's honestly no logical reason for it to happen. It happens to set a tone, and smacks far too much of "We want this atmosphere so we'll have it, no matter how much common sense we need to ignore to make it happen." It's not that they are dead that is the problem but that they are stupidly dead. I'd certainly say that MEHEM would be better if it could replace those losses with something more convincing, thus keeping the same atmosphere. I can just about stretch my credulity enough for EDI to be killed (although saying "all Reaper tech" is about the same level as saying "all Japanese tech", as if there's something really fundamentally unique about it) but the geth is just going too far for my suspension of disbelief to remain intact.

Let's say that it only kills Reapers nearby, so the Catalyst has to be dragged around to mop the rest of them up. In the time that takes we see colonies getting mulched, whole worlds being devastated. That would both make more sense and still have the same impression. It would also help to overcome the "Instant Win Button" issue. Maybe even kill one or two squadmates in the process, if suitable subtle flags could be find to pick them. Unfortuantely I suspect all of that is impossible to do in a mod (and even if it wasn't would still be a huge amount of work), but substituting nonsensical deaths doesn't cut it and are therefore best removed.

Indeed and amen to that. I don't have a problem with Destroy having a consequence; I have a problem with how utterly nonsensical the consequence actually is.

If, for example, Destroy worked by overloading the Reaper's Mass Effect cores and making them explode violently, severely damaging the fleet and killing off anyone too close to them (potentially including the Normandy's entire crew?) I wouldn't have had a problem with it. It makes sense; Reapers are known to have massive Eezo cores, and the Crucible sends a signal thingie that makes them self-destruct. Within the laws of the universe, it works.

As it is, there's simply no friggin logic to how the Crucible works. In Destroy it targets all synthetics somwhow. In Control it manages to only target the Reapers. In Synthesis it targets and significantly changes every single being in the galaxy, regardless of whenever they're organics or synthetics. It's literally a ''push this button to apply an abstract concept to the universe in an instant'' device. Mass Effect is no hard sci-fi, but that's just ridiculous even for it.

As for the mod in itself, I personally use it because I find (almost) anything better than the base ending at this point. Rather than suffer through the Catalyst's nonsense, I prefer cutting the damn thing out entirely. Whenever it makes the ending happier or not, I don't much care, I'd probably have got it even if the end result was grimmer than in vanilla, so long as it made a bit more sense. And it did make more sense, so I'm happy.

[Reorte]

JamesFaith wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Sure, you can judge whether it was the right decision or not but that judgement has to take into account the circumstances, which is my point which I feel you keep missing.

 

You spoke about technical restriction of some changes.

Those are the ones which prevent the ideal being achievable, and which need to be considered in order to fairly judge MEHEM's ideas.

Reorte wrote...
But the point is that it is down to the technical restrictions since they impose significant restrictions on the ideas that can be made to work. 

Such restrictions are objective. By your opinion "nonsensical contrievances" aren't technical restriction. 

No, they aren't, but what you can do about them is bound by technical restrictions - for example it might only be possible to remove them, thus changing the overall tone.

***

Funny that this thread is pretty much a polite discussion. What's happened to BSN?

Modifié par Reorte, 17 octobre 2013 - 08:20 .