HYR 2.0 wrote...
Or, knowing what we know now, EDI's uneducated guess was simply incorrect.
I'd make a strong wager that the Protheans did become a Reaper capital ship.
Humanity being special to the Reapers was a holdover from the Dark Energy plot.
iakus wrote...
HYR 2.0 wrote...
Or, knowing what we know now, EDI's uneducated guess was simply incorrect.
I'd make a strong wager that the Protheans did become a Reaper capital ship.
Humanity being special to the Reapers was a holdover from the Dark Energy plot.
Wait, you doubt EDI but swallow everyhting the Catalyst says as gospel?
Was the 'other races turn into destroyers' canon or just Codex speculation, like 'Udina was indoctrined'? I had the impression that was merely a hypothesis based on how it read. If it is canon, it's a rpetty weak handwave considering what we hear in ME2.CronoDragoon wrote...
fr33stylez wrote...
Question related to this:
IIRC, the Protheans were 'genetically incompatible' or whatever with the harvest process. So who did they harvest in the last cycle? No one?
What did the Reapers do? Just wipe out every species and go back into Dark Space?
The Protheans weren't made into a Sovereign-class Reaper, but in every cycle all the other races not chosen for the big Reaper are made into smaller Reaper ships, so that's still possible. The only deviation we know of concerned the Protheans....and they weren't wiped out either as we know.
Linkenski wrote...
I don't wanna sound too hypocritical or nitpicky now, but I just feel like it didn't... and it's mostly because of the reviewers and Bioware themselves.
In hindsight I think I do respect artistic integrity wheras before ME3 I was like "Artistic what??" but for me and likely everyone else that whole ending => artistic integrity debacle was like a copout, like Bioware saying "this is our excuse for rushing it and we don't honestly care that much about our own art". at least not enough to realise how much they ruined, but at the same time I understand that in retrospect it would look incredibly weak on their record if they completely changed it and like they keep saying "some like it" which I think are mostly a minority group of people who like it in the details and the rest just didn't care enough to realise how bad it was.
But whatever, what frustrated me most was, as a person who did not really dig ME3 as a whole (gameplay = better AND worse because of streamlining and oversights, Story = much worse in general, RPG = Better and a LOT worse at the same time) that reviewers, (Kotaku, IGN, Gametrailers etc.) gave it VEEERY favorable reviews even despite of Gametrailers, for example, realising how dumbed down the narrative had gotten saying "the overarching conflict has been reduced to being about the struggle of synthetics and organics" and they noted that "choices didn't ultimately matter that much" but they still gave it a 9.0 while way too many reviewers were like "10/10".
I get a lot of people think it deserved it, but to me, being one who think ME3 is much worse than the other two games, it's almost heartbreaking to think that now Bioware is probably like "yes, let's just continue this trend". That sucks so much in my opinion. [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/pinched.png[/smilie]
And whenever you hear the writers talk about the ending it's reduced to:
"people like it, some don't, but even some of those who don't understood why Shepard had to die"
And this is not just Mac Walters. I've heard Patrick Weekes and Casey say something along those vibes too. Mac said "We underestimated players and, you know, lessons learned..." in one interview and to me it just seems like they didn't learn jack! So I'm afraid that ME4 will just continue the ME3 trend of making everything too summer-hollywood-like because that's what the reviewers liked and they're going to continue to underestimate those who want intelligent storytelling because they fail to grasp why ME3's story was bad.
I know some think ME3 is fantastic and I thought it was a "great game" too, but storywise and in terms of gameplay (mostly dialogue) the game felt sooo dumbed down and especially the writing struggled to make me take it seriously at its worst and that happened far more often than in ME2 for me.
HYR 2.0 wrote...
iakus wrote...
HYR 2.0 wrote...
Or, knowing what we know now, EDI's uneducated guess was simply incorrect.
I'd make a strong wager that the Protheans did become a Reaper capital ship.
Humanity being special to the Reapers was a holdover from the Dark Energy plot.
Wait, you doubt EDI but swallow everyhting the Catalyst says as gospel?
It's a retcon. If you've read Drew's draft on the ending, you know EDI's speculation here matches up with the Dark Energy plot. Humanity is special, and harvesting them was some sort of last-ditch solution by the Reapers, and one that you can allow(!) or not. Harbinger's ME2 taunts also indicated interest in the human squadmates, but not the alien ones.
But that was all scrapped, obviously, making EDI's guess wrong.
fr33stylez wrote...
Was the 'other races turn into destroyers' canon or just Codex speculation, like 'Udina was indoctrined'? I had the impression that was merely a hypothesis based on how it read. If it is canon, it's a rpetty weak handwave considering what we hear in ME2.
I remember Hargbinger going through each race in ME2 and explaining why they couldn't be made into Reapers. I know the plot basically changed directions at least once, but I'm curious to know if there's a confirmed interpretation.
fr33stylez wrote...
Was the 'other races turn into destroyers' canon or just Codex speculation, like 'Udina was indoctrined'?
No but it has those redundant and over-the-top set-piece moments which is what I mainly refer to when I say "Hollywood" stuff. And it has those impactual dialogue moments like in the intro where the focus is on highfalutin rhethorics. Where ME1 had cliches and ME2 had that edgy tone, ME3 is full of platitudes in those big moments, and I facepalmed way more in ME3... in fact, I didn't even facepalm in the first two games because I kinda realised quickly that the writing wasn't exactly fluent or excellent, but it had some sort of original quality to it, you know... ME3 just tries too hard to mimic modern summer blockbusters in tone. My opinion.KaiserShep wrote...
I've always found the "Hollywood" criticism a bit curious, as this assumes that a big budget action film released in the summer is somehow automatically bad, or devoid of fun. There's this air of pretentiousness that comes with this kind of criticism, and it really annoys me.
There's all sorts of things I see people complain about on the internet (not just BSN) when it comes to this game, and of course Mass Effect 2, and some can be pretty unreasonable. For example, the geth. Some seem to wish that they were just some kind of skynet-like entity that we had to wipe out, and the [erroneous] comparison to Pinocchio is all too prevalent.
ThisOnesUsername wrote...
Unpopular opinion ahoy:
I don't mind the auto-dialogue because it shows that Shepard isn't just a blank slate, in. ME1 and 2 despite having more control over them Shepard still had a personality. I actually like the more personal approach they did in ME3
I don't think it's that obvious at all. If lose does not mean complete annihilation, then killing just to say you've won is a very egocentric, very human thing to do. Reaper goals are not a matter of preference. Their sole reason for existing is to harvest. I can't see machines, especially dumb machines go against their primary purpose for an arbitrary state to be applied to them. "Victory" would have no relevant definition if their objective wasn't achieved. An objective that is even more paramount given how many of them we'd already have destroyed at that point. Plus, I'm not sure that kind of utilitarian thinking (sacrifice one cycle to save the rest) really falls within Reaper parameters. It's not the same as killing a few million members of a species in the fight to harvest the rest. Blowing up the cycle technically means the Reapers have failed to preserve it. By their own ridiculous logic they would not cause that failure themselves.AlanC9 wrote...
You're missing the point. Sure, the Reapers prefer to capture rather than to kill. But if the choice is to kill or to lose, kill is obviously preferable. Just write off this cycle as a botched job, blow it up, and do better next time. This is one of between 741 (low estimate) and 20,000 (high estimate) cycles so far. Not worth getting upset about blowing it this time around.
Guest_StreetMagic_*
CrutchCricket wrote...
Their sole reason for existing is to harvest. I can't see machines, especially dumb machines go against their primary purpose for an arbitrary state to be applied to them. "Victory" would have no relevant definition if their objective wasn't achieved.
Modifié par StreetMagic, 20 décembre 2013 - 05:01 .
AlanC9 wrote...
CrutchCricket wrote...
It's not a matter of intelligence. At the end of the day the Reapers want to capture not kill. And capture is always more limiting, even if you're ridiculously advanced.
You're missing the point. Sure, the Reapers prefer to capture rather than to kill. But if the choice is to kill or to lose, kill is obviously preferable. Just write off this cycle as a botched job, blow it up, and do better next time. This is one of between 741 (low estimate) and 20,000 (high estimate) cycles so far. Not worth getting upset about blowing it this time around.
Why are you presupposing an egocentric motivation and perspective on them, rather than a non-egocentric position based on logic?CrutchCricket wrote...
I don't think it's that obvious at all. If lose does not mean complete annihilation, then killing just to say you've won is a very egocentric, very human thing to do.AlanC9 wrote...
You're missing the point. Sure, the Reapers prefer to capture rather than to kill. But if the choice is to kill or to lose, kill is obviously preferable. Just write off this cycle as a botched job, blow it up, and do better next time. This is one of between 741 (low estimate) and 20,000 (high estimate) cycles so far. Not worth getting upset about blowing it this time around.
Their objective would be achieved in preventing the rise of a synthetic singularity for another cycle.Reaper goals are not a matter of preference. Their sole reason for existing is to harvest. I can't see machines, especially dumb machines go against their primary purpose for an arbitrary state to be applied to them. "Victory" would have no relevant definition if their objective wasn't achieved.
Sunk cost fallacy. A human fallacy, no less. Is projecting human perspectives yea or nay?An objective that is even more paramount given how many of them we'd already have destroyed at that point.
The Reapers, and the Catalyst, are radical utilitarians.Plus, I'm not sure that kind of utilitarian thinking (sacrifice one cycle to save the rest) really falls within Reaper parameters.
Indeed. It is, however, similar to destroying species that can not be harvested into a Reaper.It's not the same as killing a few million members of a species in the fight to harvest the rest.
Wiping out current galactic civilization doesn't destroy the Cycle. As only one percent of the galaxy has been explored in this cycle (again: explored, not settled), and the Reapers wouldn't even need to destroy all of that to destroy the conventional resistance, there's plenty more of the galaxy left to support life and to prevent the rise of a synthetic singularity over.Blowing up the cycle technically means the Reapers have failed to preserve it. By their own ridiculous logic they would not cause that failure themselves.
Dean_the_Young wrote...
Of course, escalation isn't necessarily an either-or with harvesting, either. The Reapers could escalate and mass murder us to a point at which conventional victory (for us) becomes impossible... at which point they capture and process the survivors from those smaller colonies.
CrutchCricket wrote...
I don't think it's that obvious at all. If lose does not mean complete annihilation, then killing just to say you've won is a very egocentric, very human thing to do. Reaper goals are not a matter of preference. Their sole reason for existing is to harvest. I can't see machines, especially dumb machines go against their primary purpose for an arbitrary state to be applied to them. "Victory" would have no relevant definition if their objective wasn't achieved. An objective that is even more paramount given how many of them we'd already have destroyed at that point. Plus, I'm not sure that kind of utilitarian thinking (sacrifice one cycle to save the rest) really falls within Reaper parameters. It's not the same as killing a few million members of a species in the fight to harvest the rest. Blowing up the cycle technically means the Reapers have failed to preserve it. By their own ridiculous logic they would not cause that failure themselves.
Modifié par AlanC9, 20 décembre 2013 - 08:10 .
Guest_StreetMagic_*
AlanC9 wrote...
Dean_the_Young wrote...
Of course, escalation isn't necessarily an either-or with harvesting, either. The Reapers could escalate and mass murder us to a point at which conventional victory (for us) becomes impossible... at which point they capture and process the survivors from those smaller colonies.
See, for instance, Bekenstein, bombed to death rather than harvested. Possibly because harvesting from there was an administrative hassle for the Reapers? The world isn't very close to the rest of the human worlds.
AlanC9 wrote...
See, for instance, Bekenstein, bombed to death rather than harvested. Possibly because harvesting from there was an administrative hassle for the Reapers? The world isn't very close to the rest of the human worlds.
StreetMagic wrote...
That's towards the end though too, isn't it (when the Reapers take the Citadel). Maybe they were in a hurry.. lol.
Fixers0 wrote...
StreetMagic wrote...
That's towards the end though too, isn't it (when the Reapers take the Citadel). Maybe they were in a hurry.. lol.
Except that the broadcast about Bekenstein plays before Cerberus HQ.
Fixers0 wrote...
AlanC9 wrote...
See, for instance, Bekenstein, bombed to death rather than harvested. Possibly because harvesting from there was an administrative hassle for the Reapers? The world isn't very close to the rest of the human worlds.
I still wonder if the writers think we can take them seriously after they made us believe the Reapers literally flown past Citadel just to bomb a human colony for the sake plot convienance.
wright1978 wrote...
Fixers0 wrote...
AlanC9 wrote...
See, for instance, Bekenstein, bombed to death rather than harvested. Possibly because harvesting from there was an administrative hassle for the Reapers? The world isn't very close to the rest of the human worlds.
I still wonder if the writers think we can take them seriously after they made us believe the Reapers literally flown past Citadel just to bomb a human colony for the sake plot convienance.
They heard about the statue of Saren and flew into a rage perhaps
It would make them weak in the sense that they just give out whatever they make up only to take it back days later and completely change everything. I think as much as a lot of us would love them for changing the ending, likewise a lot of other fans and outsiders would get an increasing lack of faith in Bioware's ability to tell good stories because you never know when they might just rush another game only to change fundamental parts of the narrative afterwards.rekn2 wrote...
how would fixing their goofy mistake make them weak. own up!
See this is why I see reason to hope ME4 will be good, story-wise. It's standalone and doesn't necessarily have to follow up on any prior plotlines, so hopefully Bioware has all storyboards, overarching plot-arc and everything planned out before they go into the production stages.rekn2 wrote...
Next time, the writers ought to plan out their engagments carefully.
. . .
Modifié par Linkenski, 20 décembre 2013 - 01:11 .
Fixers0 wrote...
AlanC9 wrote...
See, for instance, Bekenstein, bombed to death rather than harvested. Possibly because harvesting from there was an administrative hassle for the Reapers? The world isn't very close to the rest of the human worlds.
I still wonder if the writers think we can take them seriously after they made us believe the Reapers literally flown past Citadel just to bomb a human colony for the sake plot convienance.
That's a immensely foolish statement, considering Bekenstein has utterly no bearing on the plot at all.Fixers0 wrote...
AlanC9 wrote...
See, for instance, Bekenstein, bombed to death rather than harvested. Possibly because harvesting from there was an administrative hassle for the Reapers? The world isn't very close to the rest of the human worlds.
I still wonder if the writers think we can take them seriously after they made us believe the Reapers literally flown past Citadel just to bomb a human colony for the sake plot convienance.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut