1814 réponses à ce sujet

[CrutchCricket]

AlanC9 wrote...

You mean, advanced enough to be irrational? Funny definition of advanced.

How are they irrational? Irrational according to what criteria and from what perspective?

[JamesFaith]

CrutchCricket wrote...

That's a rather narrow view. Why couldn't machines be sufficiently advanced to be pseudo-Lovecraftian?

And what's to say that they were only machines in ME1? Why, because their skin/hull looks metallic? They could've been a hybrid or an entirely new class of being.

There are more things in heaven and earth and all that... or at least in space.

It is more narrow view then unexplainable Cthulhu-like machines opinion? This isn't question of narrow view, but difference of opinions.

I considered them only machines because ME: Revelation reffered to Sovereign as space ship after Alliance secretly research it and after other hints about his synthetic nature during ME1. And illusion of Space Cthulhu was completelly broken for me because of Sovvy claim about "no beginning" when machines have to be built by someone. Some people considered Sovereign dialog absolute true, I considered it boasting. Both interpetation were valid since new information were given by next volumes.

[AlanC9]

CrutchCricket wrote...
And why do people always no stated purpose= creators couldn't think of anything It may be likely that when ME1 was being made they didn't  think of anything because they didn't need to and they weren't sure there was going to be a sequel and thus a opportunity/requirement to explain.

Not couldn't. Didn't. 

And not likely. Certain. Bio devs have flatly stated this, on numerous occasions.

 But that's not to say they couldn't think of something.

They did think of something, yep.They thought of the Reaper cycles preventing organics from developing synthetics that would wipe out organic life.

And leaving origins or motives mysterious/ambiguous is a valid course of action creatively.

Maybe that would have worked for you.I would have considered it a preposterous handwave. But more importantly, Bio never condidered that was an acceptable way to go.

Modifié par AlanC9, 30 décembre 2013 - 07:30 .

[CrutchCricket]

JamesFaith wrote...
It is more narrow view then unexplainable Cthulhu-like machines opinion? This isn't question of narrow view, but difference of opinions.

Yes because Cthulu-like machines require accepting the concept of something being beyond your ability to explain, or at least of a perspective fundamentally different and alien from yours. Something few people on here seem to acknowledge.

I considered them only machines because ME: Revelation reffered to Sovereign as space ship after Alliance secretly research it and after other hints about his synthetic nature during ME1. And illusion of Space Cthulhu was completelly broken for me because of Sovvy claim about "no beginning" when machines have to be built by someone. Some people considered Sovereign dialog absolute true, I considered it boasting. Both interpetation were valid since new information were given by next volumes.

Sovereign is sentient and intelligent, or if you prefer at least programmed to hide its true nature from organics until the time is right. It only showed the research teams what it wanted them to see. Therefore their results may not be accurate and they certainly wouldn't be the whole picture.

Ignoring the whole "creatures made of metal and wiring could still be a new class of being and considered alive" argument, we simply don't know and aren't capable of finding out what the Reapers are in ME1 They only appear purely synthetic but they could be something else. Which, even by ME3 proves true, as they are technorganic (or at least heavily draw on organic material for their functions).

As for the Sovereign speech, that more than anything is meant to invoke Lovecraftian tones. I haven't brushed up on my mythos lately but Cthulu is supposed to be eternal right? Anyway that's what was presented. Your view that they are only machines is a filter you've imposed on it. In ME1 the question was open.

[CrutchCricket]

AlanC9 wrote...
They did think of something, yep.They thought of the Reaper cycles preventing organics from developing synthetics that would wipe out organic life.

Well, out of all the things they could've done, this was certainly the dumbest.

I would have considered it a preposterous handwave. But more importantly, Bio never condidered that was an acceptable way to go.

Why is it proposterous? Do you truly deny that there could be things you just can't understand, either because of scale or because it's just too fundamentally different from anything a human might see or think? If Bioware chose to explain it, fine. It's their perogative. But leaving it ambiguous is still a valid path, even if it wasn't the one chosen.

Modifié par CrutchCricket, 30 décembre 2013 - 07:46 .

[Eryri]

CrutchCricket wrote...


Sovereign is sentient and intelligent, or if you prefer at least programmed to hide its true nature from organics until the time is right. It only showed the research teams what it wanted them to see. Therefore their results may not be accurate and they certainly wouldn't be the whole picture.

Ignoring the whole "creatures made of metal and wiring could still be a new class of being and considered alive" argument, we simply don't know and aren't capable of finding out what the Reapers are in ME1 They only appear purely synthetic but they could be something else. Which, even by ME3 proves true, as they are technorganic (or at least heavily draw on organic material for their functions).

As for the Sovereign speech, that more than anything is meant to invoke Lovecraftian tones. I haven't brushed up on my mythos lately but Cthulu is supposed to be eternal right? Anyway that's what was presented. Your view that they are only machines is a filter you've imposed on it. In ME1 the question was open.

I rather liked the idea that the Reapers might be the physical avatars of some sort of non corporeal entities like the Ori from Stargate, or like any number of the peculiar energy beings / extra dimensional whatchamacallits common in Startrek. In fact I suspected that might be the case when Vendetta started to speculate that some greater force might be behind the cycles. That way they might reasonably have claimed to be eternal. I was more than a little disappointed when the comparatively mundane reality of the Catalyst was revealed.

[JamesFaith]

CrutchCricket wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...
It is more narrow view then unexplainable Cthulhu-like machines opinion? This isn't question of narrow view, but difference of opinions.

Yes because Cthulu-like machines require accepting the concept of something being beyond your ability to explain, or at least of a perspective fundamentally different and alien from yours. Something few people on here seem to acknowledge.

Well, I read Lovecraft, I even used lovercraftian motives in my last book, so please, don't try to make me some short-viewed ignorant. I took Lovercraft in consideration in ME1, but I personally considered "failed experiment" more fitting on current situation then Space Cthulhu. 

There is no intelectual difference between claims "they are Cthulhu like monsters" and "they are ancient experiment going wrong". Both need their own portion of imaginations.

[CrutchCricket]

JamesFaith wrote...
I took Lovercraft in consideration in ME1, but I personally considered "failed experiment" more fitting on current situation then Space Cthulhu.

Then that's a call you made, but which has no impact on what it could've been or on others' opinions of what it should've been. Before ME3 it could've gone either way.

There is no intelectual difference between claims "they are Cthulhu like monsters" and "they are ancient experiment going wrong". Both need their own portion of imaginations.

Depends on how you formulate the latter. All I've seen you do is claim Reapers are just machines and that you knew it (or at least viewed it that way) all along. That on its own is less imaginative. I have no way of knowing what else you were thinking.

[AlanC9]

CrutchCricket wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
They did think of something, yep.They thought of the Reaper cycles preventing organics from developing synthetics that would wipe out organic life.

Well, out of all the things they could've done, this was certainly the dumbest.

Dumber than just throwing up their hands and admitting that they couldn't come up with anything? I suppose refusal to attempt something can be seen asa kind of wisdom.

Why is it proposterous? Do you truly deny that there could be things you just can't understand, either because of scale or because it's just too fundamentally different from anything a human might see or think? If Bioware chose to explain it, fine. It's their perogative. But leaving it ambiguous is still a valid path, even if it wasn't the one chosen.

It'd be OK if the harvest was a relatively trivial activity for the Reapers. Say, they find primitive organic societies aesthetically pleasing or some equivalent. But having the Reapers organize their entire society around it? ME2 made this far worse by showing that the Reapers are physically dependent upon the harvest.

Modifié par AlanC9, 30 décembre 2013 - 10:51 .

[Invisible Man]

before me3 I figured the reapers motivation would wind up being something along the lines of:
as space faring civilizations become more prevalent & advanced they consume higher & higher quantities of eezo, unknowingly bringing destruction to the entire galaxy. as biotics & starship drivecores expend eezo the background dark energy unleashed builds to terminal levels, as these level rise stars begin to degrade and die, yada... yada, yada. ka-boom... etc. the reapers emerge as the dark energy levels start to become terminal, and the only means of combating it is to harvest organic lifeforms for some reason or another, and to keep the effect from returning shortly after the cycle is purged the reapers purge most forms of advanced organic life still there.

as you may have guessed I hadn't ironed out my theory, then it became moot as I played me3.

[durasteel]

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Harbinger R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.

Ia! Ia! Harbinger fhtagn!

[CrutchCricket]

AlanC9 wrote...
Dumber than just throwing up their hands and admitting that they couldn't come up with anything? I suppose refusal to attempt something can be seen asa kind of wisdom.

There's that assumption again that the only possible justification for not explaining it is that they can't. If you refuse to consider any other alternative we really aren't going to see eye to eye on this.

It'd be OK if the harvest was a relatively trivial activity for the Reapers. Say, they find primitive organic societies aesthetically pleasing or some equivalent. But having the Reapers organize their entire society around it? ME2 made this far worse by showing that the Reapers are physically dependent upon the harvest.

Implying a society whose sole motivation is the aesthetically pleasing can't exist, even in theory?

I think if you absolutely must have some explanation ME2 gave you all you need. The cycles is how Reapers reproduce. The only thing you'd need beyond that is some explanation for why it must be species that fit specific developmental profiles but otherwise, you're all set. The cycles are simply Reaper gestation. Of course what the Reapers are classed as would make a difference as to whether that's enough. If they were just machines, you would need a higher purpose than simple self-propagation. But if they were more than just mechanical, more "alive" for lack of a better world, reproduction and the desire to persist throughout time would be enough. And even if it wasn't, there is no obligation to spoon feed it to us. This is where speculation would genuinely be justified and encouragement of such would be equally justified.

[chris2365]

 Don't know if this has been posted, but here is a quote from Mac during the 2013 New York Comic-Con: 
http://www.complexma...er-white-moment

Complex: What are your thoughts on all the people who complained about the third game’s ending?

Mac Walter: It’s been 18-19 months since it came out and my thoughts on it are that we addressed it the best we could in the extended cut. We’re obviously not going to be changing anything now. We’re only going forward. But you know what’s interesting? The only view I’ve had on it was, well, I was watching Breaking Bad, and that deals with (spoiler alert) the main character dying. And in no way do I think that anybody was surprised that he died. It was set up, even from the get-go, that this was a character that was going to die. But the interesting difference there is that that’s not a character that people had control of. They didn’t have any say at any point at what would happen to Walter White. Period.

And I think that’s one of the things we really underestimated, which was how much ownership people would take over a character that they could do that. You know, you’ve been given free choice to make all these decisions with this character, with the fates of millions of people, and then, you don’t get to choose your own fate. And I’m not saying that our decision was wrong or right. I think we just underestimated the impact that would have on certain players. To be fair, I get people, especially at the Cons, who will say, “I loved it. It was heart-wrenching, but I felt it was right for my Shepard.” And to me, that’s why it was the right path. But because there was no choice, it was going to be right for some people, and for others, in the middle, and other people were obviously very upset about it. In hindsight, I don’t think there was anything we would have changed about that, but it is a really good lesson learned.

Reading over the bolded parts (my own emphasis), it seems they still haven't adressed the fact that the theme of the ending was bothersome to some fans. Most wouldn't mind if they had to do a sacrifice, but it was the context (Catalyst and all) that was annoying to most.

They say they learned their lesson, but wouldn't change anything in hindsight. I just hope the lesson learned was the right one moving forward. I guess we'll know in due time.

Modifié par chris2365, 31 décembre 2013 - 12:08 .

[AlanC9]

chris2365 wrote...
Reading over the bolded parts (my own emphasis), it seems they still haven't adressed the fact that the theme of the ending was bothersome to some fans. Most wouldn't mind if they had to do a sacrifice, but it was the context (Catalyst and all) that was annoying to most.

They say they learned their lesson, but wouldn't change anything in hindsight. I just hope the lesson learned was the right one (coming from someone who is fine with the EC)

I think this is right. Bio doesn't actually think that the theme itself was wrong. Nor, apparently, do they think there's anything wrong with putting the player in a morally compromised position.

So if your problem with ME3 was with the concept rather than the execution, you probably shouldn't be very interested in future Bio games.

Modifié par AlanC9, 31 décembre 2013 - 12:24 .

[AlanC9]

CrutchCricket wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Dumber than just throwing up their hands and admitting that they couldn't come up with anything? I suppose refusal to attempt something can be seen asa kind of wisdom.

There's that assumption again that the only possible justification for not explaining it is that they can't. If you refuse to consider any other alternative we really aren't going to see eye to eye on this.

I was only assuming that it would have to have been a failure because Bio never considered doing what you suggest they should have done; they always assumed they would need a motivation. I also can't think of any sci-fi work that resorted to this kind of wilful obscurantism. It's a horror trope, not a sci-fi trope....unless you have examples that prove me wrong about that. If so, I'd like to see them. It would tell me what to avoid.

 The cycles are simply Reaper gestation.

A horribly inefficient procedure.

[AlanC9]

Fandango9641 wrote...

I'll certainly be avoiding anything Mac Walters going forwards - it takes a very special kind of 'talent' to ruin Mass Effect for so many people after all.

You sure it's all Mac? Drew K.'s Dark Energy ending built up to the same kind of choice, IIRC.

[FlamingBoy]

AlanC9 wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

I'll certainly be avoiding anything Mac Walters going forwards - it takes a very special kind of 'talent' to ruin Mass Effect for so many people after all.

You sure it's all Mac? Drew K.'s Dark Energy ending built up to the same kind of choice, IIRC.

Yeah its all mac, he had top billing hence he gets all the rewards if the game was a literary success and all the flak if it was a failure.

It just simply irrelevant of what drew karpy would have done, because he simply never had the chance to do it.

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

I think this is right. Bio doesn't actually think that the theme itself was wrong. Nor, apparently, do they think there's anything wrong with putting the player in a morally compromised position.

So if your problem with ME3 was with the concept rather than the execution, you probably shouldn't be very interested in future Bio games.

Then why did this game create such backlash and not others?

[AlanC9]

FlamingBoy wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...
I'll certainly be avoiding anything Mac Walters going forwards - it takes a very special kind of 'talent' to ruin Mass Effect for so many people after all.

You sure it's all Mac? Drew K.'s Dark Energy ending built up to the same kind of choice, IIRC.

Yeah its all mac, he had top billing hence he gets all the rewards if the game was a literary success and all the flak if it was a failure.

It just simply irrelevant of what drew karpy would have done, because he simply never had the chance to do it.

I can't figure out if you're agreeing with Fandango's post or making fun of it.

[AlanC9]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Absolutely certain Alan (I don't recall reading anything about Drew wanting to turn the trilogy into a celebration of three horrific acts of violence).

Remember, in the Dark Energy plot the Reapers were the good guys all along, just doing their best to save the universe. Although I suppose it was going to end with one of those fake Bio choices where the bad consequences don't actually happen.

@iakus: Beats me. You're one of the guys who freaked out, so you have a better understanding of the phenomenon than I do. Bio's never struck me as being committed to the kind of narrative freedom that you say you want for your PC, so I don't know why you guys never collided before. 

Modifié par AlanC9, 31 décembre 2013 - 01:38 .

[ImaginaryMatter]

AlanC9 wrote...

chris2365 wrote...
Reading over the bolded parts (my own emphasis), it seems they still haven't adressed the fact that the theme of the ending was bothersome to some fans. Most wouldn't mind if they had to do a sacrifice, but it was the context (Catalyst and all) that was annoying to most.

They say they learned their lesson, but wouldn't change anything in hindsight. I just hope the lesson learned was the right one (coming from someone who is fine with the EC)

I think this is right. Bio doesn't actually think that the theme itself was wrong. Nor, apparently, do they think there's anything wrong with putting the player in a morally compromised position.

So if your problem with ME3 was with the concept rather than the execution, you probably shouldn't be very interested in future Bio games.

My problem wasn't so much with the themes of the ending itself, but the idea that it was put in the wrong story.

[AlanC9]

You're probably in pretty good shape, then. Bio does seem to be sensitive to that issue.

Modifié par AlanC9, 31 décembre 2013 - 01:36 .

[vandalDX]

iakus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

I think this is right. Bio doesn't actually think that the theme itself was wrong. Nor, apparently, do they think there's anything wrong with putting the player in a morally compromised position.

So if your problem with ME3 was with the concept rather than the execution, you probably shouldn't be very interested in future Bio games.

Then why did this game create such backlash and not others?

My take on the reaction was mostly a result of the assumption that ME3 was going to be the end of the franchise.  We know now--nearly two years later--that it is not the end, and I think it's reasonable to assume that Mac Walters and Casey Hudson knew that the universe was going forward even as production on ME3 wrapped up.  The end of ME3 featured no boss battle--the only  BioWare game that lacked such an element--which lent heavily to IT, and to other ruminations that the final fifteen minutes were, not, in fact, an ending at all.  EC added fodder to that cannon, but the piece of content--the best, most lore-intensive piece of DLC, IMHO, was LEVIATHAN.

As I've played through the games since getting ME3, the volume of references to derelict Reapers, the Leviathan of Dis, etc. have lent themselves to helping me understand the ending, which I thought was gutsy, challenging, and dense.  The Mass Effect universe is far vaster than a single cycle, or a single hero from a single race.  I think that if nothing else, the revelations present at the end of ME3 testify to that fact, even with regard to Reaper indoctrination, as the LEVIATHAN DLC heavily notes.  If we don't know what we got at the end of ME3, then we can either interpret all of it based on our experiences throughout the games (something I really enjoyed about the story-light, lore-intensive setting of DARK SOULS), or BioWare has more--much more--planned for us.

Wth the last N7 Day releases from the team in Montreal--a ME-dedicated team now--I'm thinking it's the latter.  Time will tell, and I can't wait to see what BioWare has for us in the next decade.