150 réponses à ce sujet

[marcelo caldas]

Argentoid wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

The Reaper motivation should've remained unexplained.

In a parellel universe where the Reaper motivation was left unexplained, people are claiming for a "Reaper Motivation" DLC.

They are happy in this universe and doesn't know it.
But this would not matter if there is a starchild and a miracle machine called crucible in it.

Modifié par caldas, 15 novembre 2013 - 08:05 .

[SwobyJ]

I'm largely cool with the motivation. What I'm not cool with is:

-The presentation of the child. Just no.
-Leviathan explanation being DLC. Didn't help.
-There not being a deeper exploration of 'create machines to stop machines derp'. IMO there's a very good story behind this all, but the game itself only hints at that, and it doesn't serve ME3 itself, but hurts the game.

[XavierHollywood]

SwobyJ wrote...

I'm largely cool with the motivation. What I'm not cool with is:

-The presentation of the child. Just no.
-Leviathan explanation being DLC. Didn't help.
-There not being a deeper exploration of 'create machines to stop machines derp'. IMO there's a very good story behind this all, but the game itself only hints at that, and it doesn't serve ME3 itself, but hurts the game.

I didnt play Leviathan but the third point you bring up seems to be addressed just fine to me in game.

If the Reaper's did not exist the AI in the galaxy would eventually get so far out of hand that it would completely wipe organics off the face of the universe and prevent any other organics from rising up and evolving.  It would ultimately be a universe forever devoid of organic life.  

To prevent this, the Reapers come in and clean the slate every 50k years while "uplifting" and preserving the essence of the most deserving organic race.  This allows the cycle of evolution and the rise and fall of organic species to continue.

[Mcfly616]

XavierHollywood wrote...

SwobyJ wrote...

I'm largely cool with the motivation. What I'm not cool with is:

-The presentation of the child. Just no.
-Leviathan explanation being DLC. Didn't help.
-There not being a deeper exploration of 'create machines to stop machines derp'. IMO there's a very good story behind this all, but the game itself only hints at that, and it doesn't serve ME3 itself, but hurts the game.

I didnt play Leviathan but the third point you bring up seems to be addressed just fine to me in game.

If the Reaper's did not exist the AI in the galaxy would eventually get so far out of hand that it would completely wipe organics off the face of the universe and prevent any other organics from rising up and evolving.  It would ultimately be a universe forever devoid of organic life.  

To prevent this, the Reapers come in and clean the slate every 50k years while "uplifting" and preserving the essence of the most deserving organic race.  This allows the cycle of evolution and the rise and fall of organic species to continue.

inb4 "but they never allowed the universe to become devoid of all life, so there's no way to prove that it would happen" blah blah.



One of the most facepalm worthy arguments I see on this subject.

Modifié par Mcfly616, 16 novembre 2013 - 03:20 .

[KaiserShep]

Something something something inevitability. Something something something complete.

[SwobyJ]

XavierHollywood wrote...

SwobyJ wrote...

I'm largely cool with the motivation. What I'm not cool with is:

-The presentation of the child. Just no.
-Leviathan explanation being DLC. Didn't help.
-There not being a deeper exploration of 'create machines to stop machines derp'. IMO there's a very good story behind this all, but the game itself only hints at that, and it doesn't serve ME3 itself, but hurts the game.

I didnt play Leviathan but the third point you bring up seems to be addressed just fine to me in game.

If the Reaper's did not exist the AI in the galaxy would eventually get so far out of hand that it would completely wipe organics off the face of the universe and prevent any other organics from rising up and evolving.  It would ultimately be a universe forever devoid of organic life.  

To prevent this, the Reapers come in and clean the slate every 50k years while "uplifting" and preserving the essence of the most deserving organic race.  This allows the cycle of evolution and the rise and fall of organic species to continue.

I know all this. I wanted a deeper exploration.

[FREEGUNNER]

No the story we got was good just poorly executed in the final act. Bioware should have made it so the reapers were trying to prevent technological singularity(synthesis) through preservation of organics. Instead we got some skynet AI will always rebel nonsense.

[Armass81]

XavierHollywood wrote...

SwobyJ wrote...

I'm largely cool with the motivation. What I'm not cool with is:

-The presentation of the child. Just no.
-Leviathan explanation being DLC. Didn't help.
-There not being a deeper exploration of 'create machines to stop machines derp'. IMO there's a very good story behind this all, but the game itself only hints at that, and it doesn't serve ME3 itself, but hurts the game.

I didnt play Leviathan but the third point you bring up seems to be addressed just fine to me in game.

If the Reaper's did not exist the AI in the galaxy would eventually get so far out of hand that it would completely wipe organics off the face of the universe and prevent any other organics from rising up and evolving.  It would ultimately be a universe forever devoid of organic life.  

To prevent this, the Reapers come in and clean the slate every 50k years while "uplifting" and preserving the essence of the most deserving organic race.  This allows the cycle of evolution and the rise and fall of organic species to continue.

The thing is they only do it in this galaxy, theres billions of other galaxys out there. What has happened there, are they completely machine dominated by now? What happens if they come here?

[Nitrocuban]

Argentoid wrote...

Nitrocuban wrote...

An ending of such a big thing like ME1-3 deserves better than what we got before EC, but it was more the how and less the what imho.

I can see what BW wanted the ending to be: a conclusion to our epic journey that leaves players satisfied but also has room for speculations and deep thoughts about what the ending really means. All the pieces of forshadowing fitting perfctly together now that we see the whole thing.
But it didn't work, mostly because ME3 was rushed, to a small degree cause the basic theme was weak, finally cause the presentation of the ending was so underwhelming.

Anyone who has played Bioshoch Infinite might agree that this ending has all ME3 should have had.

If Bioshock Infinite was better written I would agree. But it's not, it is as badly written as it can get. 

Is it?
It explains enough to make the ending feel satisfying but still has room for speculations and discussions. The ending is one great mind f***, there are no real flaws, only things that are (not yet) explained.

[Malchat]

I think that revealing the Reaper motivation in itself isn't the problem - the issue is that our hero (and by extension, we, the audience) are forced to agree with their motivation and help them achieve their solution.

It would have been interesting if we only learn that the Reapers were originally built for a noble purpose (whether it's stopping organic extinction or the dark energy apocalypse) and then turned on their creators, getting stuck in a destructive loop. 

But the game doesn't stop at that revelation - no, it wants us to agree with the urgency and reality of the problem our enemy has been trying to solve through unimaginable suffering, destruction, mutilation and corruption.

Any disagreement with the enemy's premise is arbitrarily punished by the authors by killing off an ally, a race of allies or most of organic life.

It's likely Drew's original concept would still have forced us down this rabbit hole where the moment of triumph actually feels (to a lot of players at least) like discussing terms of surrender with a force of irredeemable perversion.

Modifié par Malchat, 16 novembre 2013 - 12:21 .

[Sion1138]

Not sure if his idea would have been better but the execution certainly would have been better.

Malchat wrote...

I think that revealing the Reaper motivation in itself isn't the problem - the issue is that our hero (and by extension, we, the audience) are forced to agree with their motivation and help them achieve their solution.

It kind of is when you consider everything that led up to it.

They were supposed to be incomprehensible, which would have been perfectly fitting since they are billions of years ahead of all other living things. 

The definition of incomprehensible is not able to be understood, period. You can not understand it, you do not have the facility.

They built the Reaper up in that manner, they set the tone and then turned everything around completely and made a big joke out of it. Seemingly applying such characteristics as hubris to these vast hive intelligences.

They transcend time and space but not the most rudimentary of failings? Come on now...

It's the same kind of thing as the Biblical or Mohammedan picture of god. Almighty, all knowing, but still petty, vengeful and vain.

Modifié par Sion1138, 16 novembre 2013 - 01:53 .

[SwobyJ]

"It's the same kind of thing as the Biblical or Mohammedan picture of god."

Well, I'm not surprised then. I mean, they're called *Reapers* and they built the *Citadel*. Usually pretty Christian religiously toned words.

And just because one stated they were incomprehensible, doesn't mean they are. It simply means in ME1 and for every cycle before, organics couldn't comprehend what the Reapers were and what they were doing (it is even implied that the Ilos researchers learned more than any other cycle before). That changed, and this cycle is different. That's it.

All 'transcend time and space' so far can mean is that distance is really no issue for them, and they have views that reach into the billions of years, not 'measure your live in decades' (Sovereign's words).

Everyone keeps attributing Lovecraftian features to them but that's a ME1 thing, where Shepard is NOT supposed to know what they are up to. It's a section of a larger story, so what.

And I never, ever, since 2009, got the impression that the Reapers were SUPPOSED to be incomprehensible by the writers. Only that they were, at the time, meant to appear as such. A mystery. This happens in sci-fi. Often in later books and films, you learn more about the enemy.

Modifié par SwobyJ, 16 novembre 2013 - 04:14 .

[Mcfly616]

Sion1138 wrote...

Not sure if his idea would have been better but the execution certainly would have been better.

Malchat wrote...

I think that revealing the Reaper motivation in itself isn't the problem - the issue is that our hero (and by extension, we, the audience) are forced to agree with their motivation and help them achieve their solution.

It kind of is when you consider everything that led up to it.

They were supposed to be incomprehensible, which would have been perfectly fitting since they are billions of years ahead of all other living things. 

The definition of incomprehensible is not able to be understood, period. You can not understand it, you do not have the facility.

I'd say they had some success in that regard. After all, many people still can't comprehend how harvesting advanced life ensures that life in general continues to exist.

[Sion1138]

SwobyJ wrote...

"It's the same kind of thing as the Biblical or Mohammedan picture of god."

Well, I'm not surprised then. I mean, they're called *Reapers* and they built the *Citadel*. Usually pretty Christian religiously toned words.

And just because one stated they were incomprehensible, doesn't mean they are. It simply means in ME1 and for every cycle before, organics couldn't comprehend what the Reapers were and what they were doing (it is even implied that the Ilos researchers learned more than any other cycle before). That changed, and this cycle is different. That's it.

What I meant by the quoted comparison is that it is nonsense. Almighty and all knowing does not go along with the psychological and behavioral characteristics of animals, imposed by their environment.

The point is, that based on the age and accumulated knowlegde of the Reaper, the billions of years separating them from the fledgling intelligences of such creatures as men, it would only have been an obvious and natural consequence, that they be indeed, incomprehensible.

As to your second point, to me it does mean that. The Reaper vanguard had no cause for deceit in that regard. Why wouldn't it simply have made it's purpose clear? It certainly would not have put the scheduled harvest at risk in any way.

If the organic/synthetic conundrum had been made known at the end of the first game, many of the later inconsistencies may have been avoided and it may also have been much less of a headache for the writers to craft the rest of the narrative as it would have provided them a concrete motivation for the main character to craft a unity between the apparent polar opposites of organic and synthetic life.

Consistency in theme and style.

But of course, it couldn't have been known because the writers themselves didn't know it until the dying days of the development process. 

Modifié par Sion1138, 16 novembre 2013 - 11:54 .

[Deathsaurer]

Sovereign was never going to tell you anything important anyways because the mystery was part of the hook.

[Sion1138]

Deathsaurer wrote...

Sovereign was never going to tell you anything important anyways because the mystery was part of the hook.

That's an outside perspective, a potential motivation on the writer's part.

But what motivation did Sovereign have to give the expose it gave? What benefit did it gain from not being truthful in that specific conversation?

[Deathsaurer]

Psychological warfare.

[Mcfly616]

Sion1138 wrote...

Deathsaurer wrote...

Sovereign was never going to tell you anything important anyways because the mystery was part of the hook.

That's an outside perspective, a potential motivation on the writer's part.

But what motivation did Sovereign have to give the expose it gave? What benefit did it gain from not being truthful in that specific conversation?

who says it wanted to benefit from anything? Sovereign doesn't consider us worthy of it's presence. Would you sit down and thoroughly explain to an insect, who and what Santa Claus is? Would you tell the ants your life story, what you do for a living and why?


I'm guessing not.



Besides, Sovereign wasn't really dishonest in any way.

[Sion1138]

Mcfly616 wrote...

Sion1138 wrote...

Deathsaurer wrote...

Sovereign was never going to tell you anything important anyways because the mystery was part of the hook.

That's an outside perspective, a potential motivation on the writer's part.

But what motivation did Sovereign have to give the expose it gave? What benefit did it gain from not being truthful in that specific conversation?

who says it wanted to benefit from anything? Sovereign doesn't consider us worthy of it's presence. Would you sit down and thoroughly explain to an insect, who and what Santa Claus is? Would you tell the ants your life story, what you do for a living and why?


I'm guessing not.



Besides, Sovereign wasn't really dishonest in any way.

It engaged in conversation for a good while, explained quite a few things. It commented on Shepard's remarks. I'd say it indulged the ants plenty.

As to dishonesty, I am not saying Sovereign was a liar, I'm saying it was made a liar.

Incomprehensible, the pinnacle of evolution and existence, eternal, the end of everything, independent, no beginning, no end, disdain for organic life.

[Sion1138]

Deathsaurer wrote...

Psychological warfare.

That's what indoctrination was for.

[Mcfly616]

Sion1138 wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

Sion1138 wrote...

Deathsaurer wrote...

Sovereign was never going to tell you anything important anyways because the mystery was part of the hook.

That's an outside perspective, a potential motivation on the writer's part.

But what motivation did Sovereign have to give the expose it gave? What benefit did it gain from not being truthful in that specific conversation?

who says it wanted to benefit from anything? Sovereign doesn't consider us worthy of it's presence. Would you sit down and thoroughly explain to an insect, who and what Santa Claus is? Would you tell the ants your life story, what you do for a living and why?


I'm guessing not.



Besides, Sovereign wasn't really dishonest in any way.

It engaged in conversation for a good while, explained quite a few things. It commented on Shepard's remarks. I'd say it indulged the ants plenty.

As to dishonesty, I am not saying Sovereign was a liar, I'm saying it was made a liar.

Incomprehensible, the pinnacle of evolution and existence, eternal, the end of everything, independent, no beginning, no end, disdain for organic life.

how is that dishonest? Technically they are made up of advanced civilizations. Those civilizations never make it past that point. I.e. "pinnacle of evolution and existence".

Eternal? Well, they've been around for millions or maybe even a billion years without failing. I don't see any reason they would believe their time was coming to end anytime soon.

The end of everything? Technically, to mere organics, the Reapers are eventually the end of them.

Independent? Each Reaper is an individual entity, made up of an entire civilization.




I could go on. But you get the point. Honestly, I think you're just reading into it too much. It may have indulged Shepard with it's presence, but it practically told him nothing. I'm not sure how one could watch that scene and not sense the slightest bit of arrogance from Sovereign.

[Deathsaurer]

Not really. Indoctrination is for compromising key individuals. Psychological warfare in general is to break you enemies will. Imagine how terrified you'd be if a super advanced AI suddenly popped up and said it and its buddies wanted to kill you for the evulz and there wasn't anything you could do about it. That you're inferior in every way and they've been doing this for millions of years taking out the race you thought was the pinnacle of achievement building everything you thought they left behind. Yeah...

[tracesaint]

I don't think Drew's would have worked out any better. I really haven't heard of a theory yet that would be better than what we ended up getting. I don't mind the endings, I figured that the trilogy would close the way it did. How else could it have? It is usually the case when the bad guys are built up as indestructible. Perhaps with a bit longer of a Priority: Earth segment and the EC as the original ending it would not get discussed as much as it does.

[General TSAR]

We will never know.

[Argentoid]

Nitrocuban wrote...

Argentoid wrote...

Nitrocuban wrote...

An ending of such a big thing like ME1-3 deserves better than what we got before EC, but it was more the how and less the what imho.

I can see what BW wanted the ending to be: a conclusion to our epic journey that leaves players satisfied but also has room for speculations and deep thoughts about what the ending really means. All the pieces of forshadowing fitting perfctly together now that we see the whole thing.
But it didn't work, mostly because ME3 was rushed, to a small degree cause the basic theme was weak, finally cause the presentation of the ending was so underwhelming.

Anyone who has played Bioshoch Infinite might agree that this ending has all ME3 should have had.

If Bioshock Infinite was better written I would agree. But it's not, it is as badly written as it can get. 

Is it?
It explains enough to make the ending feel satisfying but still has room for speculations and discussions. The ending is one great mind f***, there are no real flaws, only things that are (not yet) explained.

(Off-topic and BioShock Infinite spoilers)

While the themes of BioShock Infinite are really good and fleshed out, the character writing is bad, not to mention plotholes in the story (like the Luteces doing what they are doing for no reason given or why Elizabeth can't open a dimension where there is no Comstock in order to escape, or when Elizabeth goes to alternate realities...where'd the other Elizabeth's go? or when exactly do they keep getting a new Booker back to Columbia, and which Columbia do they bring said Booker back to? That and many more is never explained) and a long etc.

Believe me, BioShock Infinite is a pseudo-intellectual failure, like an indie artgame with an "oh-so-deep" message except with a budget.

Now why the ending is terribly written: Why Booker has to save the entire multi-verse of every Comstock ever? Why does Booker care?

Other thing: Why Booker has to kill himself? He could choose by his freedom of choice to be the good Booker DeWitt, therefore he would overwrite all the other universes!


That's why BioShock Infinite is definitely not the example to be given when saying "This is the ending ME3 should have had". The only difference between BS: I and ME3's ending is that one is more satisfactory in a way than the other. 

Modifié par Argentoid, 18 novembre 2013 - 03:27 .