1010 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

dreamgazer wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

In Synthesis... it's unclear as to whether the husk is somehow waking up as its own life form or just expressing the sudden freedom and confusion of the Reaper that's controlling it (I suspect the latter), but while I find Synthesis very difficult to choose from a roleplaying standpoint, the one time I tried it... I've never felt so parental in a Mass Effect game. It was really quite sweet.

... parental? 

see

Well, I either just created a new form of life or freed an existing one
from millions of years of slavery. It's understated, but glorious and,
to me, heartwarming.

[KaiserShep]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...
But wasn't it amazing that the PTSD soldier recognized Neiera? Isn't it amazing that you recognized Morinth? Why were they "banshees" other than to scare 12 year olds and be the "horrible deformed mooks to kill."

Bioware had dealienized them already for you. And except for a very few characters in the game all non-"husk-like" enemies had full helms that concealed their faces making it easy to dehumanize the enemy. And they showed you that Cerberus part husk-soldier early. So they weren't really human or alien. They were simply mooks.

I didn't like that Morinth was turned into a banshee. All of them look the same, so what's the difference? Another odd one is Legion. If you sold the geth, it says Legion assassin, which makes no sense either. It doesn't help that despite being a unique trooper, it's no less disposable than the other nemeses you come across. They apparently recycle the nemesis voice when you kill it too.

One of the most unfortunate, however, was Jack. The recording you hear at Cronos is tragic, but we don't actually see her. We just hear a voice coming off of the same exact phantom that attacks in the reaper chamber regardless of whether or not she was taken.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 20 octobre 2013 - 07:15 .

[Br3admax]

1. Lol.
2. I'm still not seeing the proof that anything but Destroy frees anything. In fact, I see quite the opposite. Also, robot rights, yo. 

Modifié par Br3ad, 20 octobre 2013 - 07:08 .

[Ieldra]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...
I'll tell you what. I think the devs really screwed up when they decided to "dehumanize" or "dealienize" the enemy. When they made Cannibals out of the Batarians, Brutes out of the Krogan, Banshees out of the Asari, Marauders out of the Turians, Husks out of Humans, etc., they made a huge mistake. I know they did it to scare 12 year olds. It doesn't fit with the stories Garrus and Javik tell. It doesn't fit with the story the PTSD Asari tells. Indoctrinated soldiers? yes. Making this a zombie shooter? No. This was a version of Gears 4 Dead. If they had made them simply indoctrinated soldiers (I know there are people who will object to this but to hell with them), I'd have had a lot easier time with visualizing the aftermath of Synthesis and Control, but as it is with the game currently it is off the hook and ridiculous. It is one of the things people make fun of with those endings. I couldn't wrap my head around it. Indoctrinated soldiers the way Garrus and Javik described it? Yes. I could go there. 

Yeah, that's the unfortunate role of what I call "abomination aesthetic". They made the Reaper minions to evoke visceral disgust, made their appearance indicate that they're things that should not exist we can gun down for what they are, as well as for what they do. It was a big mistake indeed. Maybe the biggest visuals-related blunder of the trilogy.

[Twilight_Princess]

dreamgazer wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

In Synthesis... it's unclear as to whether the husk is somehow waking up as its own life form or just expressing the sudden freedom and confusion of the Reaper that's controlling it (I suspect the latter), but while I find Synthesis very difficult to choose from a roleplaying standpoint, the one time I tried it... I've never felt so parental in a Mass Effect game. It was really quite sweet.

... parental? 

Because your green love-energy went into everyone and made all new and perfect? LOL yeah I guess that does make you  some kind of space-daddy/God when you think about it  

[Killdren88]

I suppose next you'll call destroyers selfish for not wanting to be the sacrificial lamb by not allowing this "Utopia"

[Xilizhra]

Ieldra2 wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...
I'll tell you what. I think the devs really screwed up when they decided to "dehumanize" or "dealienize" the enemy. When they made Cannibals out of the Batarians, Brutes out of the Krogan, Banshees out of the Asari, Marauders out of the Turians, Husks out of Humans, etc., they made a huge mistake. I know they did it to scare 12 year olds. It doesn't fit with the stories Garrus and Javik tell. It doesn't fit with the story the PTSD Asari tells. Indoctrinated soldiers? yes. Making this a zombie shooter? No. This was a version of Gears 4 Dead. If they had made them simply indoctrinated soldiers (I know there are people who will object to this but to hell with them), I'd have had a lot easier time with visualizing the aftermath of Synthesis and Control, but as it is with the game currently it is off the hook and ridiculous. It is one of the things people make fun of with those endings. I couldn't wrap my head around it. Indoctrinated soldiers the way Garrus and Javik described it? Yes. I could go there. 

Yeah, that's the unfortunate role of what I call "abomination aesthetic". They made the Reaper minions to evoke visceral disgust, made their appearance indicate that they're things that should not exist we can gun down for what they are, as well as for what they do. It was a big mistake indeed. Maybe the biggest visuals-related blunder of the trilogy.

It might be a mistake in that sense... but, IIRC, the Reapers deliberately use the abomination aesthetic to invoke fear in their enemies.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Necanor wrote...

How can you spare the Reapers? They butchered countless civilizationsin the most gruesome ways imaginable. If anyone derves death it's them.

This is not about sparing the Reapers. This is about the destruction of the technology that supports our civilization. When we had the original ending it put us back to the horse and buggy days. The sequel was going to be Quest For Fire.

The only way to preserve the technology was the Control ending. Destroying the reapers was the worst mistake we could make. The sacrifice was too great. The theme of the game was learning and understanding = evil. "I will not let fear compromise who I am."

Then came the retcons from Bioware, and there were a ton of them. Then came the EC. And you look at the slides and destroy has been softened so that it looks like everything is fine in a few months. I think it's a pile of crap and it reminds me of the old Soviet propaganda posters. Realistically? It'll take centuries to fix everything. We don't even know how a mass relay works.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Xilizhra wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...
I'll tell you what. I think the devs really screwed up when they decided to "dehumanize" or "dealienize" the enemy. When they made Cannibals out of the Batarians, Brutes out of the Krogan, Banshees out of the Asari, Marauders out of the Turians, Husks out of Humans, etc., they made a huge mistake. I know they did it to scare 12 year olds. It doesn't fit with the stories Garrus and Javik tell. It doesn't fit with the story the PTSD Asari tells. Indoctrinated soldiers? yes. Making this a zombie shooter? No. This was a version of Gears 4 Dead. If they had made them simply indoctrinated soldiers (I know there are people who will object to this but to hell with them), I'd have had a lot easier time with visualizing the aftermath of Synthesis and Control, but as it is with the game currently it is off the hook and ridiculous. It is one of the things people make fun of with those endings. I couldn't wrap my head around it. Indoctrinated soldiers the way Garrus and Javik described it? Yes. I could go there. 

Yeah, that's the unfortunate role of what I call "abomination aesthetic". They made the Reaper minions to evoke visceral disgust, made their appearance indicate that they're things that should not exist we can gun down for what they are, as well as for what they do. It was a big mistake indeed. Maybe the biggest visuals-related blunder of the trilogy.

It might be a mistake in that sense... but, IIRC, the Reapers deliberately use the abomination aesthetic to invoke fear in their enemies.

But it doesn't match what Garrus relates to the marines in the lounge "knowing you'll hesitate". It doesn't match what Javik tells Liara on Thessia "they used our own children against us." It doesn't match the PTSD Asari "then Neiera was directing the others." 

The reapers indoctrinate and turn your comrades against you knowing you'll hesitate killing them. That's what they do.

Bioware didn't follow up with this. They should have. The abomination aesthetic is so childish IMO.

[sveners]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Necanor wrote...

How can you spare the Reapers? They butchered countless civilizationsin the most gruesome ways imaginable. If anyone derves death it's them.

This is not about sparing the Reapers. This is about the destruction of the technology that supports our civilization. When we had the original ending it put us back to the horse and buggy days. The sequel was going to be Quest For Fire.

The only way to preserve the technology was the Control ending. Destroying the reapers was the worst mistake we could make. The sacrifice was too great. The theme of the game was learning and understanding = evil. "I will not let fear compromise who I am."

Then came the retcons from Bioware, and there were a ton of them. Then came the EC. And you look at the slides and destroy has been softened so that it looks like everything is fine in a few months. I think it's a pile of crap and it reminds me of the old Soviet propaganda posters. Realistically? It'll take centuries to fix everything. We don't even know how a mass relay works.

So much this. That damn Destroy slideshow "oh everything will be fine, we will rebuild everything that was lost" Emphasis so everything. Ok..... the Citadel, that only the Keepers could maintain? and Relays?

Sounds reasonable.

[Ieldra]

StreetMagic wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...
I'll tell you what. I think the devs really screwed up when they decided to "dehumanize" or "dealienize" the enemy. When they made Cannibals out of the Batarians, Brutes out of the Krogan, Banshees out of the Asari, Marauders out of the Turians, Husks out of Humans, etc., they made a huge mistake. I know they did it to scare 12 year olds. It doesn't fit with the stories Garrus and Javik tell. It doesn't fit with the story the PTSD Asari tells. Indoctrinated soldiers? yes. Making this a zombie shooter? No. This was a version of Gears 4 Dead. If they had made them simply indoctrinated soldiers (I know there are people who will object to this but to hell with them), I'd have had a lot easier time with visualizing the aftermath of Synthesis and Control, but as it is with the game currently it is off the hook and ridiculous. It is one of the things people make fun of with those endings. I couldn't wrap my head around it. Indoctrinated soldiers the way Garrus and Javik described it? Yes. I could go there. 

Yeah, that's the unfortunate role of what I call "abomination aesthetic". They made the Reaper minions to evoke visceral disgust, made their appearance indicate that they're things that should not exist we can gun down for what they are, as well as for what they do. It was a big mistake indeed. Maybe the biggest visuals-related blunder of the trilogy.

It's only a blunder if you believe anything but destroying them is productive.

Abomination aesthetic functions by reinforcing the belief that nothing but destroying them is productive. It is a matter of using the right tools for a desired effect. It is clear the writers wanted people to consider alternatives, and the abomination aesthetic was counterproductive to that. With a different appearance, many people would not be quite as determined to consider nothing but destroying them.

Edit:
The same with using indoctrinated members of various species. We would not be quite as ready to gun those down for what they are. IMO Bioware squandered some great opportunities when they didn't follow up on that theme in a way personally meaningful to Shepard.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 20 octobre 2013 - 07:36 .

[KaiserShep]

Technically, the keepers weren't there because no one else could possibly maintain the Citadel. They were there to make sure that they kept everyone complacent enough that they'd never care to delve into its inner workings enough to discover the fact that it's actually a dormant relay. Everything just keeps on working, and no one cares why, because the keepers are there to do it for them.

[iOnlySignIn]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

But it doesn't match what Garrus relates to the marines in the lounge "knowing you'll hesitate". It doesn't match what Javik tells Liara on Thessia "they used our own children against us." It doesn't match the PTSD Asari "then Neiera was directing the others." 

The reapers indoctrinate and turn your comrades against you knowing you'll hesitate killing them. That's what they do.

Bioware didn't follow up with this. They should have. The abomination aesthetic is so childish IMO.

That's a nice idea from a story point of view but in game it's impossible to implement. This is because enemies with recognizable facial features need to have distinct facial features to look believable, unless they are:

(1) Wearing masks. Such as Cerberus in ME3 and the Human enemies in ME1 and ME2.

(2) Strange looking aliens/monsters. Such as Reaper enemies in ME3 and the alien enemies in ME1 and ME2.

(3) Robots. Such as the Geth.

(4) Clones.

None of these are applicable if Reaper enemies are to truly look like the beings they were before conversion.

And it's logistically impossible to implement distinct facial features for all (or most) enemies in a shooter game such as ME3.

Modifié par iOnlySignIn, 20 octobre 2013 - 07:44 .

[Xilizhra]

But it doesn't match what Garrus relates to the marines in the lounge "knowing you'll hesitate". It doesn't match what Javik tells Liara on Thessia "they used our own children against us." It doesn't match the PTSD Asari "then Neiera was directing the others."

The reapers indoctrinate and turn your comrades against you knowing you'll hesitate killing them. That's what they do.

Bioware didn't follow up with this. They should have. The abomination aesthetic is so childish IMO.

Remember how ineffective the indoctrinated salarians were on Virmire? Quick indoctrination turns you into a drooling moron and slow indoctrination is of somewhat limited value in wartime. In addition, husks can be deployed simply by spitting down drop pods, which may well kill living indoctrinees.

The Reapers might try this sometimes, but not all the time.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

iOnlySignIn wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

But it doesn't match what Garrus relates to the marines in the lounge "knowing you'll hesitate". It doesn't match what Javik tells Liara on Thessia "they used our own children against us." It doesn't match the PTSD Asari "then Neiera was directing the others." 

The reapers indoctrinate and turn your comrades against you knowing you'll hesitate killing them. That's what they do.

Bioware didn't follow up with this. They should have. The abomination aesthetic is so childish IMO.

That's a nice idea from a story point of view but in game it's impossible to implement. This is because enemies with recognizable facial features need to have distinct facial features to look believable, unless they are:

(1) Wearing masks. Such as Cerberus in ME3 and most of the enemies in ME2.

(2) Strange looking aliens/monsters. Such as Reaper enemies in ME3 and Vorcha/Krogan enemies in ME1 and ME2.

(3) Robots. Such as the Geth.

(4) Clones.

None of these are applicable if Reaper enemies are to truly look like the beings they were before conversion.

And it's logistically impossible to implement distinct facial features for all (or most) enemies in a shooter game such as ME3.

Strawman.

It is very possible to implement. Asari, Turian, Krogan, Batarian, Human. They have different face models in Call of Duty. They have different face models in Mass Effect. All they have to do is stick them in a different uniform.

You would just need a unique face model for Morinth. I think they could handle that.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Xilizhra wrote...

But it doesn't match what Garrus relates to the marines in the lounge "knowing you'll hesitate". It doesn't match what Javik tells Liara on Thessia "they used our own children against us." It doesn't match the PTSD Asari "then Neiera was directing the others."

The reapers indoctrinate and turn your comrades against you knowing you'll hesitate killing them. That's what they do.

Bioware didn't follow up with this. They should have. The abomination aesthetic is so childish IMO.

Remember how ineffective the indoctrinated salarians were on Virmire? Quick indoctrination turns you into a drooling moron and slow indoctrination is of somewhat limited value in wartime. In addition, husks can be deployed simply by spitting down drop pods, which may well kill living indoctrinees.

The Reapers might try this sometimes, but not all the time.

Rana Thanoptis was quite effective. Benezia was quite effective, as was her platoon of Asari commandos. Saren was quite effective as well. Xil, there are other ways of indoctrinating without turning someone into a husk, or sticking them on a spike. That was done for the sake of horrifying the player.

[Xilizhra]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

But it doesn't match what Garrus relates to the marines in the lounge "knowing you'll hesitate". It doesn't match what Javik tells Liara on Thessia "they used our own children against us." It doesn't match the PTSD Asari "then Neiera was directing the others."

The reapers indoctrinate and turn your comrades against you knowing you'll hesitate killing them. That's what they do.

Bioware didn't follow up with this. They should have. The abomination aesthetic is so childish IMO.

Remember how ineffective the indoctrinated salarians were on Virmire? Quick indoctrination turns you into a drooling moron and slow indoctrination is of somewhat limited value in wartime. In addition, husks can be deployed simply by spitting down drop pods, which may well kill living indoctrinees.

The Reapers might try this sometimes, but not all the time.

Rana Thanoptis was quite effective. Benezia was quite effective, as was her platoon of Asari commandos. Saren was quite effective as well. Xil, there are other ways of indoctrinating without turning someone into a husk, or sticking them on a spike. That was done for the sake of horrifying the player.

The thing is that Rana was an infiltrator and Benezia a victim of infiltration. Shepard's a front-line soldier with a ship whose crew doesn't change much if at all; she's not likely to encounter the former, and the latter isn't as important now that the Reapers don't need mortal catspaws to do things like they did in ME1.

[Br3admax]

Shepard is not a frontline soldier. Nothing Shepard does it something that a frontline soldier would do. Shepard is special ops. Second, none of that changes anything in the slightest about what was said.

[Twilight_Princess]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Abomination aesthetic functions by reinforcing the belief that nothing but destroying them is productive. It is a matter of using the right tools for a desired effect. It is clear the writers wanted people to consider alternatives, and the abomination aesthetic was counterproductive to that. With a different appearance, many people would not be quite as determined to consider nothing but destroying them.

Wasn't there a quote somewhere by a writer saying the reapers weren't supposed to have any redeeming features? That you were just supposed to want to hate them , want to kill them and not sympathise with them?

Yeah encouraging that hatred for 99% of the game was a huge blunder if we were supposed to consider "alternatives" right at the last second.  What they did, what they are and even what they LOOK LIKE (as you said something devoid of humanity) is just so repulsive and evil! Bioware did a great job framing them as an enemy that needed to be destroyed at all costs. But then I'm expected to...talk to it's leader and...consider NOT killing them???? Wha? It's like control. You KILL Tim over the very issue but then were supposed to consider control moments after? Even though it was framed as the "bad guy choice" for most of the game!?

That's just another big reason why the endings were just so ridiculous to me. If you want us to consider control, DON'T make the one guy supporting it an indoctrinated wacko that shepard constantly says is WRONG. If you want us to consider the human race bonding and living in harmony with husks, cannibals and banshees...make it so the player reaction to them isn't just "KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!".

Modifié par Hyrule_Gal, 20 octobre 2013 - 08:13 .

[Stakrin]

I chose destroy. And I like it.

On my secondary playthrough I chose synth and also like that one.

Control-even the good version- I feel like Shep will eventually go crazy and be evil.
And I like it.

[crimzontearz]

Hyrule_Gal wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Abomination aesthetic functions by reinforcing the belief that nothing but destroying them is productive. It is a matter of using the right tools for a desired effect. It is clear the writers wanted people to consider alternatives, and the abomination aesthetic was counterproductive to that. With a different appearance, many people would not be quite as determined to consider nothing but destroying them.

Wasn't there a quote somewhere by a writer saying the reapers weren't supposed to have any redeeming features? That you were just supposed to want to hate them , want to kill them and not sympathise with them?

Yeah encouraging that hatred for 99% of the game was a huge blunder if we were supposed to consider "alternatives" right at the last second.  What they did, what they are and even what they LOOK LIKE (as you said something devoid of humanity) is just so repulsive and evil! Bioware did a great job framing them as an enemy that needed to be destroyed at all costs. But then I'm expected to...talk to it's leader and...consider NOT killing them???? Wha? It's like control. You KILL Tim over the very issue but then were supposed to consider control moments after? Even though it was framed as the "bad guy choice" for most of the game!?

That's just another big reason why the endings were just so ridiculous to me. If you want us to consider control, DON'T make the one guy supporting it an indoctrinated wacko that shepard constantly says is WRONG. If you want us to consider the human race bonding and living in harmony with husks, cannibals and banshees...make it so the player reaction to them isn't just "KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!".

but but.....ART

[Deathsaurer]

Han Shot First wrote...
 In choosing Control or Synthesis, Shepard is gambling with the galaxy's future.

Yes well for an idealistic gambler Shepard who hates ruthless calculus it fits perfectly.

[Obadiah]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

iOnlySignIn wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

But it doesn't match what Garrus relates to the marines in the lounge "knowing you'll hesitate". It doesn't match what Javik tells Liara on Thessia "they used our own children against us." It doesn't match the PTSD Asari "then Neiera was directing the others." 

The reapers indoctrinate and turn your comrades against you knowing you'll hesitate killing them. That's what they do.

Bioware didn't follow up with this. They should have. The abomination aesthetic is so childish IMO.

That's a nice idea from a story point of view but in game it's impossible to implement. This is because enemies with recognizable facial features need to have distinct facial features to look believable, unless they are:

(1) Wearing masks. Such as Cerberus in ME3 and most of the enemies in ME2.

(2) Strange looking aliens/monsters. Such as Reaper enemies in ME3 and Vorcha/Krogan enemies in ME1 and ME2.

(3) Robots. Such as the Geth.

(4) Clones.

None of these are applicable if Reaper enemies are to truly look like the beings they were before conversion.

And it's logistically impossible to implement distinct facial features for all (or most) enemies in a shooter game such as ME3.

Strawman.

It is very possible to implement. Asari, Turian, Krogan, Batarian, Human. They have different face models in Call of Duty. They have different face models in Mass Effect. All they have to do is stick them in a different uniform.

You would just need a unique face model for Morinth. I think they could handle that.

Let me just add that we kill a lot of "people" in ME2 - Asari, Krogan, Batarian, Turians, and Humans. Having people enemies instead of husks is not so difficult.

Can ME3 be modded to swap out some of the enemies spawned in eno****ers? That wouldn't be half bad.

Modifié par Obadiah, 20 octobre 2013 - 09:01 .

[Sir DeLoria]

Xilizhra wrote...

How can you spare the Reapers? They butchered countless civilizations in the most gruesome ways imaginable. If anyone derves death it's them.

Ah, but I don't consider anyone to deserve death.

So Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Mengele, Himmler, Goebbels and Heydrich all wouldn't deserve death? Interesting.