1010 réponses à ce sujet

[Reorte]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

But that's what we do in war: we dehumanize our enemy. We make up non-human names for them. We draw grotesque faces of them. We do this so it is easier to kill them. 

Now I can hear the complaints... if they hadn't made them into monsters and kept them as people in different uniforms instead, people would have complained this had become a 3rd person Call of Duty in space. I still think that would have been better.

That was Mac Walters who said that: "You're supposed to feel like the reapers don't have any redeeming features."

The reason people feel like that about the Reapers is because they don't have any redeeming features. That would work as demonising them if you're looking at a propaganda piece but when you're supposed to be in the game, talking to them, the game should be portraying them as they actually are. If there's any misplaced demonisation it needs to come from the characters; we have to take on faith that, for example, Sovereign's speech is accurate and not a twisted attempt at making the Reapers look bad otherwise the whole idea that you're role playing Shepard has gone.

[Deathsaurer]

Sovereign and Harbinger clearly do a fair bit of BSing for the sake of psychological warfare though Harbinger really seems to get into the act while Sovereign is all business. The Rannoch Reaper is probably a more accurate depiction of their mentality.

[Deathsaurer]

Without us organics are doomed. Sovereign and Harbinger really didn't suggest they had a deeper plan. Well Harbinger had that one line at the end of the Suicide Mission but no one took it seriously at the time.

[essarr71]

Deathsaurer wrote...

Sovereign and Harbinger clearly do a fair bit of BSing for the sake of psychological warfare though Harbinger really seems to get into the act while Sovereign is all business. The Rannoch Reaper is probably a more accurate depiction of their mentality.

Based on?

Variations in their personality at all is a disservice to the ultimate narrative presented.  Accepting the idea that each Reaper has it's own personality - even if only slightly shaped toward, say, it's role - hits the good-feeling control choice with a slavery brick to it's face. 

Modifié par essarr71, 20 octobre 2013 - 10:28 .

[Cainhurst Crow]

Mr.House wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Deathsaurer wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Why don't we just send the reapers to cybertron and force them to revive it?

I'm not sure Primus would be happy to see them.

What? They'll be fine. It's not like they'll all turn into unicron or something.

How dare you compare reapers to the mighty Unicron!

Which unicron? The one stuck as the planet earth or the one that blew up?

[Deathsaurer]

Because Sovereign clearly cannot legitimately think organic life is an accident and still participate in the harvest given its objective to "save" organics. It was clearly BSing about several other things to seem more imposing (we have no beginning, we have no end), there is no reason to take what it says 100% serious.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Reorte wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

But that's what we do in war: we dehumanize our enemy. We make up non-human names for them. We draw grotesque faces of them. We do this so it is easier to kill them. 

Now I can hear the complaints... if they hadn't made them into monsters and kept them as people in different uniforms instead, people would have complained this had become a 3rd person Call of Duty in space. I still think that would have been better.

That was Mac Walters who said that: "You're supposed to feel like the reapers don't have any redeeming features."

The reason people feel like that about the Reapers is because they don't have any redeeming features. That would work as demonising them if you're looking at a propaganda piece but when you're supposed to be in the game, talking to them, the game should be portraying them as they actually are. If there's any misplaced demonisation it needs to come from the characters; we have to take on faith that, for example, Sovereign's speech is accurate and not a twisted attempt at making the Reapers look bad otherwise the whole idea that you're role playing Shepard has gone.

The thing is that they didn't have to go the zombie route. Isn't destroying planets enough?

They didn't think about the aftermath with the endings. You've got two endings where you have zombies walking around. They could have been indoctrinated humans/asari/turians/batarians/whatever. You say indoctrination takes a while, but say if the reapers used a control chip for the "quick version" for the soldiers, slapped a uniform on them, and put a gun in their hands that's keyed to the control chips. Now you've got no endings with zombies.

Leave the husks in ME1 and ME2. 

Does it make the reapers look any less bad? No. Does it change how you role play your Shepard? No. Does it clean up the aftermath of two of the endings? Yes. Also in the interest of fairness the rubble scene was bull**** and should have been more than a gasp. Perhaps a hospital. After all you're going to be in New Vegas shortly.

[AlanC9]

StreetMagic wrote...

Deathsaurer wrote...

Because Sovereign clearly cannot legitimately think organic life is an accident and still participate in the harvest given its objective to "save" organics. It was clearly BSing about several other things to seem more imposing (we have no beginning, we have no end), there is no reason to take what it says 100% serious.

That, or there's no reason to take the writers seriously. Either/or.

Sure, but if you stop taking the writers seriously all the way back in ME1, you end up with two more  games that aren't worth taking seriously either.

[essarr71]

Deathsaurer wrote...

Because Sovereign clearly cannot legitimately think organic life is an accident and still participate in the harvest given its objective to "save" organics. It was clearly BSing about several other things to seem more imposing (we have no beginning, we have no end), there is no reason to take what it says 100% serious.

What does one have to do with another?  If I have an unplanned pregnancy, I can't be enthusiastic about raising the child?

To the rest: Reapers clearly think themselves far surperior to organics.  It's not crazy to think he'd just dismiss opinions or questions. 

Maybe the Rannoch Reaper was more "accomidating" to questions because organics just showed it otherwise.

[Deathsaurer]

Yeah I agree they were making things up along the way but the story as its framed now means Sovereign can't be taken completely serious. It was taking aspects of the Reapers and embellishing them to be more threatening. A great psychological tactic but it makes them look like complete monsters as a result. But who needs PR when you always win right?

[Reorte]

Deathsaurer wrote...

Because Sovereign clearly cannot legitimately think organic life is an accident and still participate in the harvest given its objective to "save" organics. It was clearly BSing about several other things to seem more imposing (we have no beginning, we have no end), there is no reason to take what it says 100% serious.

Oh, I don't take Sovereign's claims at face value but I do take its attitude as being representative of its views. At any rate every Reaper we hear from makes the Reapers seem like a right bunch of jerks; it's not their enemies demonising them.

[Deathsaurer]

Yeah they're all amoral and callous and think they're right all the time but they do believe there is a legitimate need for their intervention. That's the mindset the Rannoch Reaper gets across. Not we're just doing this for sh*ts and giggles like Sovereign implied.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Clearly, Mass Effect's story line is a house of cards. You can't really examine it too closely. You'll start pulling cards out from the bottom that don't belong.

[Reorte]

Deathsaurer wrote...

Yeah they're all amoral and callous and think they're right all the time but they do believe there is a legitimate need for their intervention.

A lot of the worst people in history have thought that.

[Elite Trooper]

Deathsaurer wrote...

Yeah I agree they were making things up along the way but the story as its framed now means Sovereign can't be taken completely serious. It was taking aspects of the Reapers and embellishing them to be more threatening. A great psychological tactic but it makes them look like complete monsters as a result. But who needs PR when you always win right?

In hindsight he's obviously talking bollocks (still one of the best conversations in the series IMO) but at the time the writers had different plans for the direction of the plot altogether, so he was probably meant to be telling the truth. After the events in ME3 (especially Leviathan) we obviously know their origins and plans, which is a shame because now there's no mystery to them or weight behind thier words and threats. I was also dissapointed that they now spout generic bad guy rubbish, "Resistance is futile", "We will end you", "Our power is unmatched" etc

[teh DRUMPf!!]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

The thing is that they didn't have to go the zombie route. Isn't destroying planets enough?

They didn't think about the aftermath with the endings. You've got two endings where you have zombies walking around. They could have been indoctrinated humans/asari/turians/batarians/whatever. You say indoctrination takes a while, but say if the reapers used a control chip for the "quick version" for the soldiers, slapped a uniform on them, and put a gun in their hands that's keyed to the control chips. Now you've got no endings with zombies.

Leave the husks in ME1 and ME2. 

Does it make the reapers look any less bad? No. Does it change how you role play your Shepard? No. Does it clean up the aftermath of two of the endings? Yes. Also in the interest of fairness the rubble scene was bull**** and should have been more than a gasp. Perhaps a hospital. After all you're going to be in New Vegas shortly.

QFT.

One refreshing thing about ME1 is that, outside the husks (which was immediately explained away as a psychological warfare tactic, as opposed to "oh noez, teh enemie is so eeeevhul!"), the enemies are not grotesque, 1-dimmensional evils. At that time, Reapers were AI-gods, not flying organic smoothies. Geth were a race of disowned AI following the aforementioned god. Krogan were a disgruntled warrior-race. Saren was a government agent doing what he thought was best. Indoctrination turned a lot of enemies into tragic victims, one of which was the mother of a squadmate...

Sadly, ME2 went in a decidedly more black-and-white direction with the enemies. They were villains, not antagonists. And the fact that Mac decided to continue to portray them that way, but turn around and advocate for them and alternative means for stopping the threat than killing them ... it just goes to show one of many ways the ending fell flat.

It was kind of like spending all of ME2 telling us Cerberus is bad, then asking us to give them the Collector Base. It's really not even a choice at all unless you can reject the message they tried to indoctrinate into the player -- LOL!

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 20 octobre 2013 - 11:36 .

[David7204]

it was made incredibly clear the Reapers were evil from the get-go. I have no idea how you're figuring they were 'ambiguous' in ME 1. They weren't.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

David7204 wrote...

it was made incredibly clear the Reapers were evil from the get-go. I have no idea how you're figuring they were 'ambiguous' in ME 1. They weren't.

Leave it to you to see things that aren't there.

[Deathsaurer]

Reorte wrote...

A lot of the worst people in history have thought that.

I'm not arguing otherwise. I'm just saying they're more like deluded dictators than random serieal killers like Sovereign made it seem.

[Erez Kristal]

hated mass effect 3 storyline and picked synthesis on my first playthrough. i was defeated by the catalyst and mentally broken. in retroaspect it was a mistake. since refuse is the better choice.
but the problem with linear games is your inability to act outside the box. it makes you more accepting of choices.

http://social.biowar...ndex/16991922/1

[General TSAR]

Xilizhra wrote...

I'm not in favor of capital punishment, 

You're not in favor of capital punishment, yet you want to kill people for AI "rights".

Bloody hypocritical numbskull.

Modifié par General TSAR, 21 octobre 2013 - 12:17 .

[Br3admax]

General TSAR wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

I'm not in favor of capital punishment, 

You're not in favor of capital punishment, yet you want to kill people for AI "rights".

Bloody hypocritical numbskull.

This is the person who goes on and on about freeing cuttlefish robots from hypothetical slavery, and then talking about using them to protect the race of stripper, commando, savior waifus. 

Modifié par Br3ad, 21 octobre 2013 - 12:20 .