172 réponses à ce sujet

[Nightwriter]

Wtf is going on with your sig.

[wright1978]

SwobyJ wrote...


In the end, I just don't want Bioware to behave as though Shepard never happened, in the next game. That's the minimum I want. I think those people who want a 100% reboot or 100% forgetting of Shepard/Normandy are wrong. These things were a giant part of what Mass Effect was and is, and I like to think Bioware recognizes that too, even as they move onto more things. They probably will. The question to me is the extent they believe this.

I agree bricking up Shep and Co behind a wall (montresor style) isn't the route i'd go.
The further forward one goes the less the trainwreck has to be referenced though.
It's not a clean solution but then i don't think there is one.

[Nightwriter]

References to Shepard, the Normandy, and the events of the first trilogy would call up feelings that would damage my ability to play the next game. I would like to play the next game, and give BioWare a second chance. Therefore I do not want references. This is not wrong for me unless rejecting the next game is right.

[GreyLycanTrope]

ElSuperGecko wrote...
The only character within the narrative
who favours Synthesis is the Catalyst - the originator of the concept,and the onewho introduces it as a viable option at the eleventh hour.  If less than five minutes of sketchy exposition, vague assurances and meaningless platitudes are enough to convince you that Synthesis is the optimum solution, against the opinion and beliefs of everyone you're fighting for... well, I'm going to leave it at that.

I feel it's presentation as an optimum solutions has more to do with the synthesis epilogue practically farting rainbows and smiles at you as opposed to anything the Catalyst says. This was most likely done mainly because of how negatively the fanbase reacted to the concept of synthesis in the original cut, in an attempt to show that the option was not as horrid as people assumed. I'm of the opinion that they went a bit too overboard with the good feels and sense of wonder, and people still say I want the disney ending

Nightwriter wrote...
It is really early and I realize that was kind of blunt so here is a piece of cake.

And no actual cake to be found in my house at this hour

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 05 janvier 2014 - 02:55 .

[Michotic]

I think both Control and Destroy were represented throughout ME3. Destroy is much more obvious. You have Hackett, Anderson, and even Shepard saying the Reapers have to be destroyed. If you look more, you can see support for Control.

EDI. She chose to control Eva's body. Through that, she moved forward by leaps and bounds. The Geth are another example in ME2. While I don't think rewrite = control, the theme is there. You can destroy the Geth, and the heretics are not a threat anymore. This carries through to ME3. Are the Geth allowed to keep the Reaper upgrades and live? Effectively taking control of the gifts the Reapers gave them and using them for their own advancement.

The Mass Relays and Citadel are a huge example of control. There are laws put into place forbidding the tampering with this technology, for fear of damage. Better to control it than to possibly destroy it.

The main problem with Control is that the main proponent for it (TIM) isn't someone the player views favorably, whereas all those that favor Destroy are looked at in a much more positive light.

As far as Synthesis...blah, that ending is the one I haven't seen any representation in the series for, and it does absolutely nothing to promote peace in any way, shape or form.

I almost always pick Destroy, as I don't trust anyone (or anything) with that much power at their fingertips, and it's the only way to ensure a future free of the Reapers.

[Nightwriter]

Greylycantrope wrote...

I feel it's presentation as an optimum solutions has more to do with the synthesis epilogue practically farting rainbows and smiles at you as opposed to anything the Catalyst says. This was most likely done mainly because of how negatively the fanbase reacted to the concept of synthesis in the original cut, in an attempt to show that the option was not as horrid as people assumed.

Well that backfired spectacularly.

Also my deepest sympathies on your cake situation.

[von uber]

SwobyJ wrote...

von uber wrote...

I think if everything from the lift onwards was portrayed more like it was with the mindcontrol segment with Leviathan it might have been an improvement (with you waking up to make your choice at the console).

It was. Significantly.

However, if you're talking about an overt declaration by the camera/script/etc, then yeah, that didn't happen. Just everything else about it did.

etc for bervity

Ah well the problem with that is leviathan is post release DLC. So a retcon (and not everybody has it). if you look at the camera work, shifting of the character models (and yes the script) it is clear that what is happening is in Shepards mind (and I think fairly well done).
The problem with the catalyst is that it is not so clear (and in fact everything points to it being a real situation). There is no clear waking up with blood coming out of your nose as their is in Leviathan, therefore nothing to suggets that it is in your mind.
it might not have solved the R/B/G choice but it would have at least made the ending scene fit better within the overal story.

[Linkenski]

ME3 happened, I was dissapointed and I still am. I don't really think that's gonna change, but I guess I have been accepting it for the last year.

[SwobyJ]

Nightwriter wrote...

You say the narrative favors Destroy, but I don't feel like BioWare favored Destroy at all. If there was any choice that was presented as optimum, Synthesis would be the closest thing.

Also, as with many indoctrination theorists, I feel like you are creating a false peace between yourself and the game by grasping at straws.

It is really early and I realize that was kind of blunt so here is a piece of cake.

I think ME3's focused narrative (for a new player) nudges into Destroy but no more than that. If you especially don't cure the Genophage, and pick Quarians, everything Synth related after that, especially the introduction of the choice, is incredibly sudden and even scary to players. There are ways to make it much less scary and even fit, but again, it's a nudging, not a core thing. There's the 'middle direct path' thing in the Crucible though, yeah, and the optional EDI growth, but at the same time, at the end of it, she *already* claimed she felt alive.

Series-wise, no, only a very small portion of the series favors Synthesis. At least for now, its a new concept (as a workable idea). What I'm saying is that it'll become more ethically appealing over time, but for now, in Shepard's story, it takes a literal 'leap of faith' to go for it. For even Controlling beings as advanced as the Reapers, 'we're not ready', and Synthesis outright changes everyone to accepting Reapers seemingly roaming free. If we look at the EC result, it looks quite weird... but peaceful. If we forget about the result and look at everything we've been shown before about it, then no, it doesn't work. And in fact would never have been agreed to by ME2 Shepard. Certain events, like the Genophage and Rannoch arc, or even just the loss of so many people and roleplaying it having a stronger emotional impact on Shepard, can guide Shepard towards Synthesis like he never would have been before.

It's ok, disagreement itself is totally fine and you could be entirely right. This is a pretty speculative thread of mine, but I've been holding back for a while on BSN (not because 'I.T. shut dowwnnn', but because I've just been more busy IRL)

[SwobyJ]

Re: ElSuperGecko

Leviathan not being in the game is really concerning to me. Yes, people can and have come to the basic 'needed' conclusions about things without any DLC (and I'm not just talking about indoctrination, but even just the whole themes behind the Reapers and what's happening, and why we're being given the choice), but only VERY few people imo.

Extended Cut has bits of info that really help. Leviathan is an outright loredump in overt and covert ways. Omega enforces certain themes and reminders. Citadel, I really think, has a lot of secrets within, especially about where the series will be heading, but it is under the cloak of fanservice.

I just think that Bioware should back away from the 'DLC as puzzle pieces' (as yes, a producer stated they were...) concept and just make more general fun stuff like with ME2, at least for the next game. Tell your story, revelations and backup info included, in the damn main story, regardless of kewl artistik intent.

~~~

I so far expect more than you when it comes to a form of connection to ME1-3, but I also as well don't expect to be running around as Commander Shepard with EDI and Garrus in my team or whatever. I DO personally think it's a significant chance that Bioware is playing with semantics to a high degree (as they have before... a lot) and Shepard dying and/or not being the focus of the next game isn't the end of what the players will still interpret as Shepard's fate. I still think there might be interesting things to happen in regards to him, but yes I expect to play as a different named character in the next game.

~~~

Yes, ME1-ME3 and even most of ME3 has a favoring of Destroy. At the same time, the player can make both active and passive movements into creating a Shepard who is more curious about Control and more nudged towards Synthesis. No matter what, Shepard requires 'convincing' by the Catalyst to choose Synthesis. He was never for it, before that conversation. It's a totally new concept to him, with only a few previous optional event states guiding him into its themes (full peace, new life, changes of entire species, etc).

And yes, the only character we meet that favors the shown Synthesis option is, literally, the Catalyst. Maybe like Harbinger would, but even he isn't there to overtly state he's for that exact choice. Just the Catalyst. If you go for it (even I did), fine, cool. It's a choice given. Shepard never intended to keep the Human Reaper, but TIM can quickly convince him that this is a good thing to do. The story continues. But it's just dishonest imo to say that Synthesis was anyone elses' idea, in the story we're presented, than the Catalyst. Shepard never even vocally contemplated anything like that (only the recognition of AIs as people, things like that), unless we REALLY stretch our imagination into Shepard's thoughts. And we can do that, and that is roleplaying .

[SwobyJ]

Nightwriter wrote...

References to Shepard, the Normandy, and the events of the first trilogy would call up feelings that would damage my ability to play the next game. I would like to play the next game, and give BioWare a second chance. Therefore I do not want references. This is not wrong for me unless rejecting the next game is right.

Honestly, you just sound jaded then.

I guess you can want the Final Fantasy route of almost never truly relating anything in one game to another game (except the hints of a multiverse dealio like they're gradually doing now), but so far, every Mass Effect game (even mobile ones) have had at least an indirect relation to the other games.

And I'm even potentially going to be fine with a lack of relation, but reference would be needed (even a frickin timeline) in order to feel this is really the IP that Bioware worked on for several years.

Unless the game takes place far into the past or there is some even weirder deal happening in the story ("Everyone forgot Shepard!" lolll..), to expect even references to not exist is really to the point of disregard for the series itself, and I gotta at least politely wonder why you're here. The combat? The general style? The music? The character writing as long as they're not botched by being attached to what feels like a terrible plot?

Sorry, I don't really know you, so I'm just wondering.


I guess they could even go 1000s or more years into the future, but even then, if we take the presentation of the ending literally, "The Shepard" was seemingly a thing? Maybe? Not a good sign for your tastes, at least.

Modifié par SwobyJ, 05 janvier 2014 - 07:50 .

[SwobyJ]

Nightwriter wrote...

Wtf is going on with your sig.

Mine? Read the Hyperion Cantos, as Jokers line there really brings up the potential of even more connections between those stories over time.

[Obadiah]

I'm not sure that only a small portion of the narrative favors Synthesis. If you take the Catalyst and Leviathan at their word, then without the Reapers, the current cycle at best would be slaves to the Leviathan, and at worst would not exist because Synthetics had wiped out all Organics millennia ago. The message here is that we needed the Reapers.

Plus, the whole story could be interpreted as a lesson on how flawed we are as we Organics and Synthetics currently exist apart. Organics are chained to emotion, and prone to selfish, violent, prejudiced, self-destructive chaos, while Synthetics without emotion are prone to meticulous acts of horrendous violence. As far as the gains made in ME3 for the current cycle, the plot almost says that we need the Reapers. After all, without their presence/threat the Krogan have no chance of being cured, the Geth have no chance of survival, and the Rachni would probably be exterminated on sight.

That kind of existence lends itself to the idea of a middle ground of the two being the better way.

Modifié par Obadiah, 05 janvier 2014 - 08:13 .

[SwobyJ]

Michotic wrote...

I think both Control and Destroy were represented throughout ME3. Destroy is much more obvious. You have Hackett, Anderson, and even Shepard saying the Reapers have to be destroyed. If you look more, you can see support for Control.

EDI. She chose to control Eva's body. Through that, she moved forward by leaps and bounds. The Geth are another example in ME2. While I don't think rewrite = control, the theme is there. You can destroy the Geth, and the heretics are not a threat anymore. This carries through to ME3. Are the Geth allowed to keep the Reaper upgrades and live? Effectively taking control of the gifts the Reapers gave them and using them for their own advancement.

The Mass Relays and Citadel are a huge example of control. There are laws put into place forbidding the tampering with this technology, for fear of damage. Better to control it than to possibly destroy it.

The main problem with Control is that the main proponent for it (TIM) isn't someone the player views favorably, whereas all those that favor Destroy are looked at in a much more positive light.

As far as Synthesis...blah, that ending is the one I haven't seen any representation in the series for, and it does absolutely nothing to promote peace in any way, shape or form.

I almost always pick Destroy, as I don't trust anyone (or anything) with that much power at their fingertips, and it's the only way to ensure a future free of the Reapers.

Yep. ME3 does favor Control as an action significantly more than in ME2. Paragon itself is treated less well (full Paragons are outright unsure, compared to their state in ME2), but the action of Control is given a significant boost in ME3.

In fact, we're outright given ethical justifications of rewriting and utilizing the powers and technologies, and even core systems of our enemy! WTF did people think we were doing when we picked Geth or Peace on Rannoch? It wasn't just an upgrade, it was a change of code in all Geth there without their decision being made on it, and it in fact did not reflect their previous stated goal of Dyson Sphere before the Quarians busted it up.

But we're still given a case for it. And while in ME2 we were getting direct warnings after warnings (how people *gladly* picked to keep the Base is still a bit confusing to me), ME3 we're given more ethical warnings yet being presented examples of how it can structurally work if done in more precise and careful-contextual ways.

The difference, even up to Shepard's words towards TIM at the end, is that controlling an individual (and for that matter, a more primitive AI like the Geth), is a lot different than controlling the Reapers, specifically.

I don't think we're there yet, where the narrative (outside of EC slides, lolol) actually justifies something like that. It DOES set us very well down the path of going for it, and it won't significantly punish us for it, if I'm right.

Anyway, this just brought on what I said before - that the next game may be much more favoring towards Control-ish deals (not the exact same context as previous games, of course). It actually might be in a galaxy brought to 'chaos' (after unification against the Reapers breaks up?), and we'll be tested about how much chaos we'll allow before cracking that whip (either using soft or hard power) and getting others to either follow you willingly towards a safer future, or outright forcing them (not through conflict, but through control) to get in line for the greater good.

I don't think we're done with Destroy/Red/Chaos/Conflict, just that its time to shine above all else in the Mass Effect universe is probably over. I know it's kinda random, but look up the chakra colors. We can start at the base Red, into like Orange and stuff (and we do that), but Green and Blue are higher, leading into Magenta and even extra-physical chakras. I think this is a model that could be useful in the progress of the series, and while Red/Destroy/Chaos/Freedom will always have its option and even situations where it makes much more practical sense, I don't think it'll be the focus of Mass Effect's narrative after Shepard.

Controllers, be happy. I'm not hating on your choice, just on the context of it being done in regards to the Reapers themselves. And I think you'll get more justification over time.

Synthesizers, be happy. I'm not hating on your choice ...ok, I'm not hating on the aspirational basis behind your choice (), just the context of it being done in that way and in regards to the Reapers and all people. I think the series will eventually head towards the endeavoring towards 'synthesis'/'post-organic'. In fact, it might do that along similar timeframes as human society does, as long as this series survives that long!

I just view Mass Effect as more of a process. We've broken the Cycle in some way and to some extent, and now's the time to settle larger scores, explore what we've been kept away from, and grow into people and beings that may end up entirely different from what we started as.

[SwobyJ]

von uber wrote...

SwobyJ wrote...

von uber wrote...

I think if everything from the lift onwards was portrayed more like it was with the mindcontrol segment with Leviathan it might have been an improvement (with you waking up to make your choice at the console).

It was. Significantly.

However, if you're talking about an overt declaration by the camera/script/etc, then yeah, that didn't happen. Just everything else about it did.

etc for bervity

Ah well the problem with that is leviathan is post release DLC. So a retcon (and not everybody has it). if you look at the camera work, shifting of the character models (and yes the script) it is clear that what is happening is in Shepards mind (and I think fairly well done).
The problem with the catalyst is that it is not so clear (and in fact everything points to it being a real situation). There is no clear waking up with blood coming out of your nose as their is in Leviathan, therefore nothing to suggets that it is in your mind.
it might not have solved the R/B/G choice but it would have at least made the ending scene fit better within the overal story.

Well Leviathan was always gonna happen. It was bumped up, I think someone in Bioware said, though. The actual schedule may have had Omega first, and EC at a rather later period (I THINK someone said it was always gonna happen?). In any case, there was a changeup in DLC schedule, and likely in the development process itself.

So yeah, there could have been a 'retcon' (it doesn't really fit the form of one perfectly, but I do get what you mean). At the same time, we have no idea whether it reflects some new idea of the devs, or just reinforces what they were trying to say from the start.

I disagree about the Catalyst part to an extent. Even in the original endings, and *before* I.T., we had videos of people (lol I have one saved in a Playlist on Youtube) of people screaming to others: "IT'S NOT REAL. THIS ACTUALLY CAN'T HAPPEN. IT'S BASED ON HIS MEMORIES!"

The difference is that people then were making a leap of an assertion, whereas after all DLC there is more weight to it, imo despite people saying "It's over, Bioware didn't confirm your little theories." The biggest and most overt about it is Leviathan, but I found the all the DLCs (yes, even Citadel) bolstered this perception in various ways.

But yeah, Leviathan as an actual full story arc right after the Rannoch one (or before it?) would have been damn nice and made the story if not great to people, but at least more understandable. As it is, it's been seen as more of a lore patch job, with us unable to tell if it really is, or was always intended to communicate what it did. :S

[SwobyJ]

Linkenski wrote...

ME3 happened, I was dissapointed and I still am. I don't really think that's gonna change, but I guess I have been accepting it for the last year.

Well thanks for being respectful

I have some disappointment too. I just also have to say I have a real enjoyment and excitement as well. It's a bit of a shaky one, as a lot of it is based on feeling I "cracked the code!" to a good enough extent (and therefore if wrong, for all I know I could feel crushed!), but for now I am at peace with what Bioware did enough to be checking out the next game.

No way in hell they're getting a preorder or collectors at this rate, unless the previews show very specific things I want. At the same time, I might get it at or around launch. I'm at least open to that now.

[SwobyJ]

Obadiah wrote...

I'm not sure that only a small portion of the narrative favors Synthesis. If you take the Catalyst and Leviathan at their word, then without the Reapers, the current cycle at best would be slaves to the Leviathan, and at worst would not exist because Synthetics had wiped out all Organics millennia ago. The message here is that we needed the Reapers.

Plus, the whole story could be interpreted as a lesson on how flawed we are as we Organics and Synthetics currently exist apart. Organics are chained to emotion, and prone to selfish, violent, prejudiced, self-destructive chaos, while Synthetics without emotion are prone to meticulous acts of horrendous violence. As far as the gains made in ME3 for the current cycle, the plot almost says that we need the Reapers. After all, without their presence/threat the Krogan have no chance of being cured, the Geth have no chance of survival, and the Rachni would probably be exterminated on sight.

That kind of existence lends itself to the idea of a middle ground of the two being the better way.

By small I mean quantitatively.

By Synthesis, I mean literally and quickly merging organics and synthetics into a new form of life.

The messages that promote 'A synthesis' do not just take that leap and go "Yes, agreeing with the Reapers that quick merging of both types into one is ideal."

No, they promote incremental and more understandable steps. The Quarians integrate here, while the Geth individualize there, for example. And none of this stuff was friendly-sounding in ME2. In that, it was closer to the Blue - co-operation furthering mutual goals. Co-operation isn't the same thing as outright becoming more like the other person/being/species in a flash.

It may be that *ultimately*, *A* synthesis is the final solution for pretty much all beings in the universe, but unlike what the Reapers think, it would appear that the rest of the people fighting on the ground and in space would think otherwise. They're fighting for their current lives, not potential ones many many millions of years down the road (assuming gradual synthesis in that sense). As Paragon, you can extend that thematically to their children. But at no point, do those armies go "Yes, I want to fight for the eventual fate of those millions of years into the future."

No, that's Shepard alone, with the Catalyst. It's more the Reapers' perspective, than anything previous, including other synthetics, and even including Reaper-Code-infused Geth.

When you pick Synthesis (original ending, first run) - heck, when *I* picked Synthesis - it is either for the utopian feeling of what it may be, or because you're taking a moral stand that reflects personal beliefs. But I don't think it's a great argument to say that even the previous examples of 'Synthesis tone' like Cured Krogan and Rannoch Peace People are even for what you jumped for. Not even Wrex who wanted Peaceful Cured Krogan, or Loyal Tali and Legion who wanted Peace between Quarians and Geth. No, it's just Shepard and a Reaper here, making a deal akin to what Saren seemed to want to achieve.

~~~

But now that I got that out of the way, yes, you make a good point.

However, should I be indebted to, hypothetically, a very homocidal and murderous ancestor of mine for doing things that lead to my birth? At the largest-scale logic, totally. Without him doing his actions, it would have never lead to him impregnating a woman, and that going down the line to my birth and existence.

But practically? Who cares! It's so unrelated to immediate and even mid-term facts of my life that I can really just go back and go "No, he was horrible, he did horrible things, and needed an execution or life sentence" (again totally hypothetically haha), instead of "Yes, he really should have been let go, because you know, he made me! If he didn't do his things, I wouldn't be born. <3"

The Reapers' 'good' things (through the Cycle control system, and I'd venture possibly into the whole Ascension process itself) are STRONGLY outweighed by the trillions or more lives they've extinguished, or if you go the most optimistically, extinguished then reignited into a virtual form. They had no say. Trillions, without any say about this.

This is like saying that World War II was really just fine because it promoted industry, the rise of the middle-class, emergence of civil rights, and many medical technologies. To be more correct, I'd say that conflict (discomfort) is more universally necessary for distinct advancement to become an option, but that to wave it off and call it more than that is incredibly dangerous.

I think it's important to take your POV with these things - I just think that the story we're currently being presented with, more often urges us to look at the immediate threat and actions of these Reapers and ask ourselves if it is truly worth it to have them walking around, in whatever way, in this form.

Personally, I think they need to learn a little... humanity, before having the privilage of doing so. In fact, as Reapers are ultimately code, 'descendants' of the Reapers like EDIs seem to suggest the idea of, would be very welcome. AI is not necessarily the enemy (depending on our RP mode), but the Reapers absolutely are and were, until the last few minutes of the entire trilogy, and for good reason.

[SwobyJ]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

I always thought Synthesis plays well into the theme of faith that Mass Effect seemed to have throughout the series. Leaping into the unknown, trusting that things would always turn out the best. Accepting the word of someone, even if the source doesn't seem to be the most reliable.

And I think that's why Synth isn't like the automatic game over or something silly.

While I don't think the whole gist of the series (SO FAR; see my posts above) supports this approach, we see snippets of it show up even in ME1. If we take Vigil as legit, then yes,that's an example of things slotting into place and helping people.

It also supposes, above the other paths, the concept of destiny. It could be said that the Reapers are trying to groom specific people not to doom everyone by default, but to try to establish that connection that they're so poor (partially due to organic and synthetic limitations, but significantly due to their own arrogance and contempt of others) at establishing.

So we stop Saren, and the path he would have failed at (he tries to collect the Rachni, Krogan, Geth too... but for all the wrong reasons). Sovereign 'takes an interest' in Shepard, and this interest (at least by the Reapers at large) may have persisted in various forms throughout the series. Take Shepard's dead body. Take Shepard's alive body. ... this leading to imo... Wear him down from the War. Convince him to join us. A much more delecate and dare I say... partially respectful approach by the Reapers towards Shepard.

It's not that they wanted that exact Synthesis option that whole time, just that they might have seen Shepard as at least part of a key to enacting their Final Solution to their programmed problem.

And in that, in fulfilling that destiny, there IS a kind of beauty. A chilling one, but also with Shepard being who he/she is, an inspiring one, as we head into the future of the series. Even Shepard was able to at least get the Reapers to conjure up peaceful images, not submissive ones (at minimum, if even taking a more I.T. POV; if taking literal then its even more powerful). I only think that this kind of choice is being premature to the 'core story' so far, like choosing to control the Base in ME2. Like yeah, sure, the tech is useful, but we don't know if TIM can be trusted yet. And there he goes using it for nefarious reasons .


But yeah. I actually do hope that Synthesis specifically, if it actually somehow affects a sequel, in some form contains the most lore information in its results, and very interesting contexts. Synth in EC seems to have a tone of 'learning everything, expanding beyond this universe', and I would still want the results to honor that, instead of just "Oh nothing happened." or "I didn't really affect much." or even "Oh Shepard was just indoctrinated and doomed everyone."

Modifié par SwobyJ, 05 janvier 2014 - 08:57 .

[AlanC9]

SwobyJ wrote...
The Reapers' 'good' things (through the Cycle control system, and I'd venture possibly into the whole Ascension process itself) are STRONGLY outweighed by the trillions or more lives they've extinguished, or if you go the most optimistically, extinguished then reignited into a virtual form. They had no say. Trillions, without any say about this.

This is like saying that World War II was really just fine because it promoted industry, the rise of the middle-class, emergence of civil rights, and many medical technologies.

I don't think that's a useful metaphor. The question isn't whether WW2, or the Reapers, were "good." The question is if they were better than the available alternatives.

You can't determine if the Reapers' victims outweigh anything without deciding what's in the other basket.

Modifié par AlanC9, 05 janvier 2014 - 09:05 .

[SwobyJ]

AlanC9 wrote...

SwobyJ wrote...
The Reapers' 'good' things (through the Cycle control system, and I'd venture possibly into the whole Ascension process itself) are STRONGLY outweighed by the trillions or more lives they've extinguished, or if you go the most optimistically, extinguished then reignited into a virtual form. They had no say. Trillions, without any say about this.

This is like saying that World War II was really just fine because it promoted industry, the rise of the middle-class, emergence of civil rights, and many medical technologies.

I don't think that's a useful metaphor. The question isn't whether WW2, or the Reapers, were "good." The question is if they were better than the available alternatives.

You can't determine if the Reapers' victims outweigh anything without deciding what's in the other basket.

They killed trillions of people. They're upfront about it, and their justifications why, but they did it.

Just as a Shepard committing Arrival's deaths should be held accountable in some way, so should the Reapers for omnicide.

We can't decide what's in the other basket because all we're being told is that 'chaos' occured and that there was 'organic and synthetic conflict'.

I don't contest that our viewpoints might change in future games, especially if we get to see what happened during the time of the Leviathans.

What I do contest is that we should give a damn about the vague examples, sorry, super vague reasonings Shepard is being given in the last chapter(s) of the series.

We might look back at Destroy and go "Oh, that wasn't the best choice in light of ____ and ____ and ____"
.or we might look back and go "That was absolutely necessary as ___ was ___ and ____"
,or we might look back and go "Ok, it was the best choice at the time, but in the longer run, ____ would have been more wise overall because ____, but Destroy still works for when it happened."

We can't truly tell. As it is, we have omnicidal machines that are threatening and literally killing trillions of people in our view, and they're suddenly going "Nah, there's other ways to do this."

Those other ways may in fact be legit, or at least be moral positions that will becoming strengthened later on. It doesn't change that the Reapers' 'solution' was still absolutely horrific and since Reapers appear to have some form of emotions, they absolutely committed evil.

We can talk about necessary evils, sure, but we'd need more information. Information that is sadly drastically lacking in especially the original ending without any DLC.

Modifié par SwobyJ, 05 janvier 2014 - 09:31 .

[Obadiah]

I don't know why there is a dispute on whether the Catalyst or the Reapers are evil. They're evil, there's no question about that in my mind.

I'm just stating the fact that, in this story we still needed them.

Modifié par Obadiah, 05 janvier 2014 - 10:09 .

[SwobyJ]

I think I dispute the term 'need'. The Reapers afaik never intended in Genophage Cure to happen. They never intended on Rannoch Peace even to happen.

Those were side effects. I don't really consider side effects to be part of a 'needing' of something. In another timeline, the Krogan might have lived on their planet, wrecked it, but then not been 'uplifted' by the Reaper-tech-guided Salarians into fighting against the Rachni (which themselves were affected by the Leviathans or Reapers or whatever).

We just don't know. Too many.. variablez

In terms of currently known cause-and-effect, sure, the fabric of da universe 'needed' the Reapers. We may even get more info on that over time, at least I personally hope so.

But for this Cycle needing the Reapers to *stay*? Heh, not really. They're pretty secure (except for Shepard at the very end) in agreeing that the Reapers at the very least need to GTFO out of Earth and GTFO out of the galaxy and their lives.


The Reapers seem to be about preservation... at all cost, even at the cost of individual lives, or at least physical and moral lives. Is preservation a good thing? Well, we'd mostly agree, yes. It has its upsides, its helpfulness. But just like 'competition at all costs' on the other end, it also means that other moral goods are seemingly shoved to the side.

Ok, so the Geth and Quarians came to peace.
This never would have happened if it wasn't for the Reapers intervening and taking control of the Geth.
But that never would have happened if the Geth never allowed the Reapers in.
But that never would have happened if the Quarians never attacked.
But that never would have happened if the Quarians were not blocked from a healthy society due to the Citadel Council species' distain for them (AKA the Control system and guidance of government-type the Reapers set up..).
But that never would have happened if it wasn't for the Geth nearly exterminating the Quarians.
But that never would have happened if it wasn't for a large number of Quarians rejecting Geth growing sapience and trying to shut them down.
But that never would have happened if the Quarians were just already in a galactic system that encouraged good relations between organics and synthetics instead of a regulated cycle of genocide upon organics just in case they make organics that would rebel.

The Reapers had their solution, if we take them at face value. Sure. Sounds goody!
But that solution was the most horrific of all things in the series, and it looks like it was done with contemptuous attitude and methodology.
It was 'imperfect' to the extreme. It was inhumane to the extreme.


To me, keeping them alive is practically a reward for their service. That they don't deserve.

Notice how there's not an ending where we just talk to the Reapers and they just... stop? I mean, we're talking to the supposed collective intelligence of them, and they won't just... stop... bloody... killing us? Like ... just.... be good, and realize that hey, especially with Rannoch Peace, maybe .... they should stop killing us?

No, when we try to maintain full freedom, it goes "SO BE IT" and it looks like everyone we know dies.

We either go for destroying them, or we go for controlling (aka restricting) them, or we go for utterly changing them along with organics/synthetics into a more peaceful and understanding state.
*As they are*, they're abominations, and monsters. We 'needed' them like a druggie needed his dealer - until we found another way, sure, the cycle of death just gets worse and worse, and more and more depressing (sheesh, did you hear that Rannoch Reaper's voice?).

So I don't really blame people for picking Control and Synthesis, as they just reflect wishes for a better way, and while I don't think EC actually tells the whole truth, in spirit I think it is accurate enough. I do think of the Reapers as caught up in this mess perhaps as much as everyone else, and that they're walking tombstones that can't consider a way out of what they consider to be the only solution. That they contain so much 'humanity' (for lack of better term right now) in them, but refuse to tap into it for true understanding of what they're doing.

It's just that in Control, we have to forgive their presence in the galaxy, and in Synthesis, we have to forgive their presence and their motivations for committing omnicide. If anyyyyone else did that, it would be grounds for immediate execution. I'm more willing to trust and work with the 'children' of the Reapers than the tainted field of the Reapers themselves.

And honestly, I think we will. Bioware said that Shepard's story is over with ME3, but did they say the Reapers are entirely over? (Maybe they did, I dunno) If they didn't, then yeah, I can think of a lot of ways to 'soften them up' without reducing the evil they did, literal view of ME3 ending or otherwise.

Modifié par SwobyJ, 05 janvier 2014 - 10:55 .

[von uber]

SwobyJ wrote...

Well Leviathan was always gonna happen. It was bumped up, I think someone in Bioware said, though. The actual schedule may have had Omega first, and EC at a rather later period (I THINK someone said it was always gonna happen?). In any case, there was a changeup in DLC schedule, and likely in the development process itself.

.....

But yeah, Leviathan as an actual full story arc right after the Rannoch one (or before it?) would have been damn nice and made the story if not great to people, but at least more understandable. As it is, it's been seen as more of a lore patch job, with us unable to tell if it really is, or was always intended to communicate what it did. :S

Leviathan introduced too much that was relevant to the plot and the ending to be DLC. I agree that it should be done between Tchunka and Rannoch as it (should) set up the confrontation with the Reaper nicely (and is where I usually stick it in).

I suspect the fact it was bumped up was to give more explanation for the ending, as it explains the origins and motivations of the catalyst (without which it literally feels like it was pulled from their arse). Poor choice by Bioware there.
Omega is much more of a DLC as it is largely self contained.

[Obadiah]

Usually do Leviathan after the Ardat Yakshi mission on Lessus, just so Leviathan doesn't ruin the reveal of the Banshees at the monastery.