191 réponses à ce sujet

[ImaginaryMatter]

David7204 wrote...

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Leaving the Reapers 'unknowable' with the foreshadowing as it is would have been incredibly poor writing.

What foreshadowing in ME1?

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.

Unknowable =/= random stuff

The Reapers have a goal for the cycles, in ME1 they state that goal is beyond our comprehension. It's like Quantum Mechanics.

[Vortex13]

David7204 wrote...

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.

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.

Their motive wasn't incredibly specific though, their methods sure, but why they were doing what they were doing was always presented as a big question mark.

The player could ask and investigate, just like a person could ask why Cuthulu wanted to kill everyone once he awoke, but the motivation behind such actions remained illusive, as is with Lovecraftian horror.

The fact that the endings attempted to spell out the Reapers' grand plan word for word didn't work (IMO) because such elements can't be explained, at least not and still remain Lovecraftian. 

[David7204]

And in ME 1 we have utterly no reason to give their 'beyond our comprehension' nonsense any credit.

In any case, having the Reaper having a goal that actually is beyond our comprehension would be as narratively ridiculous and pointless as having the Reapers break down because of a mechanical failure that had nothing to do with what Shepard or anyone else learned or did. 

So that's completely off the table.

Modifié par David7204, 07 janvier 2014 - 07:49 .

[David7204]

Vortex13 wrote...

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.

The fact that the endings attempted to spell out the Reapers' grand plan word for word didn't work (IMO) because such elements can't be explained, at least not and still remain Lovecraftian. 

So it's simple. Discard the Lovecraft elements. Shepard already does. Let the narrative do so as well.

Modifié par David7204, 07 janvier 2014 - 07:53 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

And in ME 1 we have utterly no reason to give their 'beyond our comprehension' nonsense any credit.

In any case, having the Reaper having a goal that actually is beyond our comprehension would be as narratively ridiculous and pointless as having the Reapers break down because of a mechanical failure that had nothing to do with what Shepard or anyone else learned or did. 

So that's completely off the table.

I don't think you much understand the processes to a computer when confronted with a logic bomb.

Nor do I think you understand different concepts of morality or rationale. 

Why did HAL-9000 go insane? Why did the Metrons inhibit growth in their sector of space? Why does the Sith Emperor wish to exterminate all life in the Universe?

As for anything being completely off the table: 

That's your opinion. Thankfully, games aren't made to your specifications.

[ImaginaryMatter]

David7204 wrote...

In any case, having the Reaper having a goal that actually is beyond our comprehension would be as narratively ridiculous and pointless as having the Reapers break down because of a mechanical failure that had nothing to do with what Shepard or anyone else learned or did. 

So that's completely off the table.

Nonsense, the conflict presented by the Reapers is them killing us. You can resolve that conflict without having to know why.

[Vortex13]

David7204 wrote...

Vortex13 wrote...

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.

The fact that the endings attempted to spell out the Reapers' grand plan word for word didn't work (IMO) because such elements can't be explained, at least not and still remain Lovecraftian. 

So it's simple. Discard the Lovecraft elements. Shepard already does. Let the narrative do so as well.

That would question why all the obvious Lovecraft references and parralells were used throughout the series. I have no problem with there not being any notion of Lovecraftian horror, but the entirety of ME 1's plot twist hinged on it,  the Reaper mythos is steeped in it, and these only continued in ME 2 and in ME 3's Leviathian DLC. If BioWare intended on expalaining everything, then why use staples of a grenre built around things being unexplainable, or beyond our comprehension?

Like I said earlier, BioWare wanted it both ways, and IMO you can't.

[David7204]

You 'can' do anything in a story. There's no physical law preventing you from getting rid of the Reapers however you want. It would still be very bad writing, however.

[David7204]

Vortex13 wrote...

That would question why all the obvious Lovecraft references and parralells were used throughout the series. I have no problem with there not being any notion of Lovecraftian horror, but the entirety of ME 1's plot twist hinged on it,  the Reaper mythos is steeped in it, and these only continued in ME 2 and in ME 3's Leviathian DLC. If BioWare intended on expalaining everything, then why use staples of a grenre built around things being unexplainable, or beyond our comprehension?

Like I said earlier, BioWare wanted it both ways, and IMO you can't.

Not at all.

It's defiance.

How many stories have done this: The narrative builds up an impossible task, an undefeatable enemy, an unbreakable vault. What do the heroes do? Complete the task. Defeat the enemy. Crack the vault. Is that a contradiction? Wanting it both ways? It isn't.

Great triumph can't exist without great challenge. So the narrative has to establish that the enemy is strong, the challenge is difficult. And it's true. The challenges are great. And it's not until the end that it's revealed what the hero possesses is greater.

So this would be along the same vein. Have the story establish the Reapers 'Lovecraftian Godness' is strong and intimidating and powerful. And establish at the end that what Shepard possesses is greater still.

Modifié par David7204, 07 janvier 2014 - 08:14 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

Vortex13 wrote...

That would question why all the obvious Lovecraft references and parralells were used throughout the series. I have no problem with there not being any notion of Lovecraftian horror, but the entirety of ME 1's plot twist hinged on it,  the Reaper mythos is steeped in it, and these only continued in ME 2 and in ME 3's Leviathian DLC. If BioWare intended on expalaining everything, then why use staples of a grenre built around things being unexplainable, or beyond our comprehension?

Like I said earlier, BioWare wanted it both ways, and IMO you can't.

Not at all.

It's defiance.

How many stories have done this: The narrative builds up an impossible task, an undefeatable enemy, an unbreakable vault. What do the heroes do? Complete the task. Defeat the enemy. Crack the vault. Is that a contradiction? Wanting it both ways? It isn't.

Great triumph can't exist without great challenge. So the narrative has to establish that the enemy is strong, the challenge is difficult. And it's true. The challenges are great. And it's not until the end that it's revealed what the hero possesses is greater.

So this would be along the same vein. Have the story establish the Reapers 'Lovecraftian Godness' is strong and intimidating and powerful. And establish at the end that what Shepard possesses is greater still.

No. That's stupid.

There is nothing Shepard possesses that is greater than the Reapers. 

Shepard deserves to fail miserably if that's the case. I'd shoot him myself so that he didn't blow my chance to scientifically beat the Reapers.

Those heroes should always fail. They're idiots.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 07 janvier 2014 - 08:16 .

[dreamgazer]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

No. That's stupid.

(chuckles)

[David7204]

I notice how often you've been dropping 'science' since I created my thread discussing it.

Did you catch the post I made noting that supporting 'science' has become as much a refuge for fools as supporting religion undoubtedly once was?

Modifié par David7204, 07 janvier 2014 - 08:21 .

[AresKeith]

David7204 wrote...

It would still be very bad writing, however.

The reason they were given was bad writing and a cliche

[ImaginaryMatter]

David7204 wrote...

You 'can' do anything in a story. There's no physical law preventing you from getting rid of the Reapers however you want. It would still be very bad writing, however.

I have no idea how this is relevent to anything, we're talking (or at least I thought we were) about the Reaper's goals, not the physical process of stopping them in the game. The two are independent of each other, so regardless of whether the Reapers are saving Organics from Synthetics, or harvesting resources, or having some goal based on a non-linear view of time; the physical Reaper shells that are shooting at everything still cause the same conflict. The tension and goal of the story comes from stopping them from killing everything, how that is done is independent of whatever goal or character arc or whatever you think they have to go through.

Thank fully in the real world, narratives don't have to fit your narrow definition of good or bad writing.

[dreamgazer]

David7204 wrote...

Did you catch the post I made noting that supporting 'science' has become as much a refuge for fools as religion undoubtedly once was?

David, are you sure you want to go down this path?

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

I notice how often you've been dropping 'science' since I created my thread discussing it.

Did you catch the post I made noting that supporting 'science' has become as much a refuge for fools as religion undoubtedly once was?

Calcium

ion

gradient

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

I notice how often you've been dropping 'science' since I created my thread discussing it.

Did you catch the post I made noting that supporting 'science' has become as much a refuge for fools as religion undoubtedly once was?

Did I tell you how remarkably foolish that statement is? No? Well I'll tell you now.

It's a really foolish statement born more out of spite and appeal to an argument that isn't being made by taking the argument out of context to provide some kind of self-confirming bias to make yourself appear to be on some pedestal of dogmatic self-righteousness for your unflattering and flat beliefs that aren't very compelling or interesting, and are very arrogant.

[ImaginaryMatter]

dreamgazer wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Did you catch the post I made noting that supporting 'science' has become as much a refuge for fools as religion undoubtedly once was?

David, are you sure you want to go down this path?

The hero never fears the path unknown.

[AresKeith]

dreamgazer wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Did you catch the post I made noting that supporting 'science' has become as much a refuge for fools as religion undoubtedly once was?

David, are you sure you want to go down this path?

Seems like David trying to take things off-topic

Report?

[MassivelyEffective0730]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Did you catch the post I made noting that supporting 'science' has become as much a refuge for fools as religion undoubtedly once was?

David, are you sure you want to go down this path?

The hero never fears the path unknown.

The hero uses the power of heroism to overcome everything. 

Who needs strategy or tactics. It's about characterization and determination! But it has to be heroic and not evil.

[Steelcan]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Did you catch the post I made noting that supporting 'science' has become as much a refuge for fools as religion undoubtedly once was?

David, are you sure you want to go down this path?

The hero never fears the path unknown.

The hero uses the power of heroism to overcome everything. 

Who needs strategy or tactics. It's about characterization and determination! But it has to be heroic and not evil.

Keep in mind, the best soldiers are not the best trained, the toughest, the most effectiv e, the most cunning. its the courageous ones that win wars

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Steelcan wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Did you catch the post I made noting that supporting 'science' has become as much a refuge for fools as religion undoubtedly once was?

David, are you sure you want to go down this path?

The hero never fears the path unknown.

The hero uses the power of heroism to overcome everything. 

Who needs strategy or tactics. It's about characterization and determination! But it has to be heroic and not evil.

Keep in mind, the best soldiers are not the best trained, the toughest, the most effectiv e, the most cunning. its the courageous ones that win wars

'Untempered courage is useless in the face of educated bullets'

George Smith Patton, Jr, Commander, Third Army.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 07 janvier 2014 - 08:29 .