Modifié par Obadiah, 07 janvier 2014 - 05:09 .
Guest_StreetMagic_*
Modifié par StreetMagic, 07 janvier 2014 - 05:27 .
Ieldra2 wrote...
There are basically two ways this would've worked: Either write things as a subversion from the start, with both the abomination aesthetic and Reapers' inscrutability lessening as closer as we get to them.
A world like the ME galaxy, where everyone in power is either a villain, an assh*le, an idiot or hopelessly naive, and where military leaders are sometimes competent but political leaders are always idiots, such a world is not for me.
Guest_StreetMagic_*
AlanC9 wrote...
Ieldra2 wrote...
There are basically two ways this would've worked: Either write things as a subversion from the start, with both the abomination aesthetic and Reapers' inscrutability lessening as closer as we get to them.
Bio kind of did start this path, didn't they? By the end of the series the Reapers aren't all that inscrutable. If anything, they're indoctrinated tools. Still abominations, I suppose.A world like the ME galaxy, where everyone in power is either a villain, an assh*le, an idiot or hopelessly naive, and where military leaders are sometimes competent but political leaders are always idiots, such a world is not for me.
This is a pretty common military SF trope, isn't it? Stargate SG-1 is made of this. Star Trek TOS and original BSG too.
Modifié par StreetMagic, 07 janvier 2014 - 05:35 .
First, that's one Reaper, as opposed to the whole force and what's behind them. Second, the Lovecraftian theme does not strictly include omnipotence of any single entity, but cognitive abilities beyond anything humans could ever aspire to, and the resulting power to ignore the little stings of lesser beings like humans as a temporary annoyance. The incomprehensibility is stressed everywhere and in spite of that, subverted eventually in ME3, since we can actually understand quite well what it's all about (even though many don't want to and thus reject it all as "nonsense", which it isn't in context).Obadiah wrote...
@Ieldra2
Isn't the godlike omnipotence of the Reapers subverted way back in ME1 soon after the initial encounter of Sovereign on Virmire? Despite Sovereign's attitude of omnipotence, Sovereign can be made angry by talking smack to it, and in our discussion with Vigil (later with Legion) we discover that the Reapers are not as powerful as they present themselves until we defeat one in ME1 and then begin defeating them repeatedly in ME3.
Modifié par Ieldra2, 07 janvier 2014 - 07:20 .
Guest_StreetMagic_*
Modifié par David7204, 07 janvier 2014 - 07:23 .
David7204 wrote...
I'm curious about something, Ieldra. Could you explain to me why you exactly you constructed an elaborate fantasy of Shepard surviving Synthesis if he's supposedly the antithesis of what you believe? (For whatever that counts for.) It seems to me you should be gleeful to see him die.
In any case, this is nonsense. Determination is self-evident and self-supporting. It doesn't need a quality to back it up. It is a quality.
Absolutely not. In fact, the narrative never describes the Reapers as 'unknowable.' Plenty of characters do, the Reapers themselves included. But Shepard never accepts it, and continues to question anyone he or she can. Add to that the obvious foreshadowing of the very specific motive for the Reapers.Vortex13 wrote...
The major problem (IMO) was that BioWare wanted it both ways, they wanted the utterly alien nature of a creature out of a Lovecraft novel, while at the same time being completely understandable. Why do the Reapers harvest? Who made them? Where do they come from? Answering these questions was at odds to how they were presented, and ultimately lead to the rather lackluster Catalyst and his cycles.
Knowing their origins was not the reason they fumbled at the end, it was describing something that was presented as unknowable in simple, easy to understand terms. The Reapers' reason for doing what they do, that should have remained in the dark.
Modifié par David7204, 07 janvier 2014 - 07:22 .
David7204 wrote...
Leaving the Reapers 'unknowable' with the foreshadowing as it is would have been incredibly poor writing in my opinion.
Guest_StreetMagic_*
David7204 wrote...
Absolutely not. In fact, the narrative never describes the Reapers as 'unknowable.' Plenty of characters do, the Reapers themselves included. But Shepard never accepts it, and continues to question anyone he or she can. Add to that the obvious foreshadowing of the very specific motive for the Reapers.Vortex13 wrote...
The major problem (IMO) was that BioWare wanted it both ways, they wanted the utterly alien nature of a creature out of a Lovecraft novel, while at the same time being completely understandable. Why do the Reapers harvest? Who made them? Where do they come from? Answering these questions was at odds to how they were presented, and ultimately lead to the rather lackluster Catalyst and his cycles.
Knowing their origins was not the reason they fumbled at the end, it was describing something that was presented as unknowable in simple, easy to understand terms. The Reapers' reason for doing what they do, that should have remained in the dark.
Read my mission-by-mission review. I said that it was incredibly difficult to keep my Shepard - who I imagined to be somewhat more intelligent that the game suggested him to be - in character. Up to and excluding the end of ME2, I could always avoid the more stupid stuff. Then came ME2's ending, Arrival and the whole of ME3, which - I said that elsewhere, too - attempted quite a good job of destroying my Shepard's soul. What I did was a mental retcon. I tuned out much of the stupidity and stuck to my original character concept, but it was an uphill battle against the writers, from the end of ME2 onwards.David7204 wrote...
I'm curious about something, Ieldra. Could you explain to me why you exactly you constructed an elaborate fantasy of Shepard surviving Synthesis if he's supposedly the antithesis of what you believe? (For whatever that counts for.) It seems to me you should be gleeful to see him die.
Revulsion alone is not meaningful, and the determination does not only need to flow from somewhere, but it needs some real to back it up, else it comes across as meaningless defiance. I consider it rather insulting on ME3's part that it tries to tell me that defiance which isn't backed up by something real is meaningful. It isn't. It's a stupid conceit of so-called "heroic" storytelling. Those heroes meaningful to me always have something to back their determination up.In any case, this is nonsense. Determination is self-evident and self-supporting. It doesn't need a quality to back it up. It is a quality. Now, of course, determination needs to flow from somewhere to be meaningful. Thankfully it does. Shepard and the player's obvious revulsion at the genocide of the Reapers.
David7204 wrote...
Leaving the Reapers 'unknowable' with the foreshadowing as it is would have been incredibly poor writing.
David7204 wrote...
In any case, this is nonsense. Determination is self-evident and self-supporting. It doesn't need a quality to back it up. It is a quality. A determined man is a powerful man. Now, of course, determination needs to flow from somewhere to be meaningful. Thankfully it does. Shepard and the player's obvious revulsion at the genocide of the Reapers.
Modifié par David7204, 07 janvier 2014 - 07:36 .
Guest_StreetMagic_*
MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
As for revulsion, I don't really have a sense of it. It's more of a legitimate conflict of interest between me and the Reapers.
The fact the Reapers follow a pattern very obviously meant to accomplish some action. A concrete action that directly revolves around 'mortals,' so to speak.ImaginaryMatter wrote...
David7204 wrote...
Leaving the Reapers 'unknowable' with the foreshadowing as it is would have been incredibly poor writing.
What foreshadowing in ME1?
StreetMagic wrote...
MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
As for revulsion, I don't really have a sense of it. It's more of a legitimate conflict of interest between me and the Reapers.
This is where I don't understand why you pick/advocate Destroy.
You seem so much like a Renegade Control person.
David7204 wrote...
So let me get this straight. You're somehow under the impression that revulsion at monsters is 'meaningless defiance' with 'nothing real to back it up.'
Ieldra, do you have any clue what 'real' means? That revulsion is the same revulsion we feel when confronted by any evil. Every society in existence condemns murder. Every system of law and justice. And they do it based on the same revulsion both the player and Shepard are faced with when they look at the Reapers.
Is that your claim, Ieldra? That morals are not 'real'? Good and evil are not 'real'? Are you prepared to follow through with even the easiest ramifications of such a belief, let alone the more difficult ones?
Explain to me what exactly you think is real.
Guest_StreetMagic_*
MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
StreetMagic wrote...
MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
As for revulsion, I don't really have a sense of it. It's more of a legitimate conflict of interest between me and the Reapers.
This is where I don't understand why you pick/advocate Destroy.
You seem so much like a Renegade Control person.
I like living. I don't need the Reapers to do that, when I can do it just as easily with Destroy.
I don't like what is the core of the Reapers existence. Even I have compassion and pity. They're like the Cybermen from Doctor Who.
David7204 wrote...
The fact the Reapers follow a pattern very obviously meant to accomplish some action. A concrete action that directly revolves around 'mortals,' so to speak.ImaginaryMatter wrote...
David7204 wrote...
Leaving the Reapers 'unknowable' with the foreshadowing as it is would have been incredibly poor writing.
What foreshadowing in ME1?
StreetMagic wrote...
MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
StreetMagic wrote...
MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
As for revulsion, I don't really have a sense of it. It's more of a legitimate conflict of interest between me and the Reapers.
This is where I don't understand why you pick/advocate Destroy.
You seem so much like a Renegade Control person.
I like living. I don't need the Reapers to do that, when I can do it just as easily with Destroy.
I don't like what is the core of the Reapers existence. Even I have compassion and pity. They're like the Cybermen from Doctor Who.
So you don't call that revulsion either?
Cybermen are soulless bastards. An insult to all that is decent. Must kill.
See? Revulsion. It's simple to admit to.
Retour en haut