191 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

SwobyJ wrote...

I thought the idea was that against the Reapers, the normal rules no longer apply. That they're so far ahead, and no unlike anything fought before, that understanding them would only distract from the main issue of stopping them before that even becomes a thing.

Vigil has no problem with understanding the CYCLE and mistakes made - and one of the mistakes made could have been that people wanted to understand them (and thus open themselves up to indoctrination influence... which seems to be the pattern).

I don't think that's idiotic, but the start of an understanding of Reaper tactics. By 'understand', Vigil clearly means 'open yourself up to sympathizing with'. We can understand their tactics and even their technology to a point, but understanding their motives will only hurt any fight *against* them. And lo and behold...

Tell me: if someone had told you the Catalyst's rationale for the cycle, and that this meant necessarily the death of your civilization, would you think your civilization would fight any less hard for its survival? IMO indoctrinations muddles the issue, its presence conditions (indoctrinates?) you to think that knowledge and understanding of certain things is bad. That, too, is a thematic message I detest. The reality is: if someone wants to kill you and isn't open to negotiation, then of course you will fight as hard as you can, whatever the reason behind it - at least until, as Garrus says, the fight is taken out of you, but that doesn't happen by knowledge, but by being defeated too often. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 08 janvier 2014 - 12:36 .

[David7204]

No such thematic message exists in Mass Effect. It's a figment of your imagination.

[Ieldra]

Mere repetition does not prove your point.

[David7204]

Does it prove yours?

As to mine, does Shepard nod and smile to Vigil saying "It doesn't matter" and then never ask about the Reapers again? No. That's just silly. The exact opposite happens. Shepard asks question every chance available.

[spirosz]

David7204 wrote...

Shepard asks question every chance available.

Dependent on the player. 

[Obadiah]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
The basic dissonance is more about intellect than power: we have entities with cognitive abilities and knowledge far beyond that of galactic civilization, and here comes a human of average intelligence, if that (let's face it, Shepard isn't the brightest if you take everything at face value), and "solves" it all through sheer defiance and determination, nothing of which is backed up by any kind of real argument. If Shepard had spoken at least with above-average *human* intelligence, it would be far less galling.

Do we need to understand the Reapers to defeat them? I thought that was one of the take-aways from Vigil's conversation. We don't need to understand the Reapers or win an argument with them to defeat them. Also, I always looked at the story as "life" defeating the Reapers, with Shepard and this cycle as one important aspect of it, but unable to defeath the Reapers on its own.

Vigil is an idiot in that, and ME sends an idiotic message in that. Maybe it's not necessary in the end that you understand them, but how would you ever *not* strive to understand your enemy in a war, try to discern what drives them, what they can do, on which principles their capabilities are based, maybe predict their moves? There mere idea that anyone would consider gathering such intelligence unimportant in a war is ludicrous.

Mass Effect: "Your task is not to understand them, but to stop them"
XCOM: Enemy Unknown: "How can we hope to defeat an enemy we don't understand?"

I find the  latter message much more plausible, and there's another thing XCOM gets right: Such knowledge *will* change you, it's inevitable. ME gives us the Catalyst as a convenient means to stay ignorant in the Lovecraftian sense, but I am firmly convinced that such ignorance is not an option.

I don't think you shouldn't strive to understand your enemy, its just not necessary to defeat them. One shouldn't get hung up on understanding one's enemy if the goal is to defeat them. The Reapers may have tried to portray themselves as magnitudes of orders higher than us on a intellectual level, and maybe they were, but I just don't see why that necessitates that we, their "average" enemy, should lose. It more just made the Reapers overconfident.

Modifié par Obadiah, 08 janvier 2014 - 02:01 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

No such thematic message exists in Mass Effect. It's a figment of your imagination.

Heroism.

[TheWerdna]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

@Cosmic

Destroy gives much the same vibe.

"If this war has taught us anything, it is that we are at our strongest when we work together. And if we can put down our grievances long enough to stop something as powerful as the Reapers, imagine what we can achieve now that they are defeated. It will take time, but we can rebuild everything that was destroyed. Our homes, our worlds, our fleets and defenses. All of this - and more. Together, we can build a future greater than any one of us could imagine."

Control does something similar, only reading like an Obama speech. I am, I will, me, me, me, me, me.

Destroy comes at the cost of synthetics, which really bothers me. I know that it bothers some people less, and some aren't bothered by it at all, but it frustrates me. It contradicts the theme that so many claim is represented by Destroy: freedom. Yes, there is finally freedom... but not for synthetics. Organic freedom at the cost of synthetic life. 

Control is interesting. Shepard can do anything he wants with the Reapers, but the epilogue has a strong Big Brother vibe. I think the EC should have allowed for a less "parental" Shepard.

Actually, thats not completely correct. Destroy is freedom for all organic life and future synthetic life, at the cost of the current synthetic life. I believe that peace between organics and synthetics is possible, but should be accomplished on our own terms and by our own choices. I regret deeply having to kill all current synthetic life to do so, and if I could do so without making that sacrifice I would choose it in a heartbeat. Unfortunally the alternatives continue the some form of control and manipulation over the galaxy. For good or ill, I believe full heartdly the galaxy deserves a chance to shape its own desity free of the reapers. Yes, this may just lead to our destruction. Yes, things might not turn out for the best. But we deserve a chance to try.

[Ieldra]

Obadiah wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
The basic dissonance is more about intellect than power: we have entities with cognitive abilities and knowledge far beyond that of galactic civilization, and here comes a human of average intelligence, if that (let's face it, Shepard isn't the brightest if you take everything at face value), and "solves" it all through sheer defiance and determination, nothing of which is backed up by any kind of real argument. If Shepard had spoken at least with above-average *human* intelligence, it would be far less galling.

Do we need to understand the Reapers to defeat them? I thought that was one of the take-aways from Vigil's conversation. We don't need to understand the Reapers or win an argument with them to defeat them. Also, I always looked at the story as "life" defeating the Reapers, with Shepard and this cycle as one important aspect of it, but unable to defeath the Reapers on its own.

Vigil is an idiot in that, and ME sends an idiotic message in that. Maybe it's not necessary in the end that you understand them, but how would you ever *not* strive to understand your enemy in a war, try to discern what drives them, what they can do, on which principles their capabilities are based, maybe predict their moves? There mere idea that anyone would consider gathering such intelligence unimportant in a war is ludicrous.

Mass Effect: "Your task is not to understand them, but to stop them"
XCOM: Enemy Unknown: "How can we hope to defeat an enemy we don't understand?"

I find the  latter message much more plausible, and there's another thing XCOM gets right: Such knowledge *will* change you, it's inevitable. ME gives us the Catalyst as a convenient means to stay ignorant in the Lovecraftian sense, but I am firmly convinced that such ignorance is not an option.

I don't think you shouldn't strive to understand your enemy, its just not necessary to defeat them. One shouldn't get hung up on understanding one's enemy if the goal is to defeat them. The Reapers may have tried to portray themselves as magnitudes of orders higher than us on a intellectual level, and maybe they were, but I just don't see why that necessitates that we, their "average" enemy, should lose. It more just made the Reapers overconfident.

The thing is, you will never be able to determine in advance if such intelligence will be necessary to defeat your enemy, especially if they're more advanced than you. So you'll do your best to gather all such knowledge. If it turns out to be unnecessary, then you'll have wasted some effort, but if it turns out to be necessary, you would've lost the war without it. Now tell me: will you do your damnedest to gather such knowledge or not? That's why I call Vigil an idiot. The only way you can ever be confident you won't need that knowledge is if you can reasonably be confident in your victory based on what you already know about your and your enemy's capabilities, and you are about as far as possible from that in the Reaper War.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 08 janvier 2014 - 10:09 .

[Vortex13]

alleyd wrote...

I agree Ieldra that Vigil's comments make little sense, and that you have to have as much information on both sides of the equation, attacker and defender. Sun Tzu said it centuries ago.

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

The galaxy are never in that position of knowledge at any time. There was no active pursuit of true knowledge with regards the Reapers or with their own solutions.

Personally, I think that Vigil's comments were related more to the fact that stopping the Reapers from pouring through the Citadel Relay was more important then finding out what the Reapers were.

Though, the fact that players could spend several minutes talking to it while Saren was getting closer to the Conduit did take some of the urgency out of the situation; but not really anymore then spending time asking the Catalyst all about the ending chocies as your fleets are being decimated.

[NeonFlux117]

Nah, Shepard is not an unstoppable juggernaut.

He was killed... Guess the author didn't play the beginning of ME2.

And the Leviathan are the Reapers. The Reapers just one upped them at their own game.... The true "cosmic imperative" was issued and has been by Harbinger for quite some time. Also, the Reapers goals are not mystic or unquantifiable to us 'lesser races'. They are, and always have been straightforward-

Goal 1- To insure the survival and nourishment of the Reaper Armada and to ensure that the Reapers "harvest" continues. Self preservation.

Goal 2- Every cycle must end in the creation of a new reaper. Perfect in it's design. Humanity has been chosen for this cycle.

And about Shepard. And it's brilliant in it's execution, and I'm sure BioWare did it on purpose.

Shepard isn't questioned and put on the pedestal for a reason. Sure it's a "cause video games" and cause it's "like an RPG powertrip bro" but Shepard is a bit more than that. I guess the author doesn't know context. But you know, most of the times that Shepard is alone in the series shows this.... Again this requires the audience to kinda immerse themselves in the world and established lore of Mass Effect to really grasp it. But once you do, it makes sense.

And Leviathan isn't about Leviathan.... Lulz. It's about Shepard. And a little, a tad, about the "Reapers".. But don't the two go hand in hand really? You can't really have one without the other... Again, well over the authors head here.

Context is key in the understanding of Mass Effect and Shepard. And make no mistake, the games are about how the MEU reacts to Shepard. And thus the player.

But the author makes some decent surface level connections.

Modifié par NeonFlux117, 08 janvier 2014 - 03:40 .

[Vortex13]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
The basic dissonance is more about intellect than power: we have entities with cognitive abilities and knowledge far beyond that of galactic civilization, and here comes a human of average intelligence, if that (let's face it, Shepard isn't the brightest if you take everything at face value), and "solves" it all through sheer defiance and determination, nothing of which is backed up by any kind of real argument. If Shepard had spoken at least with above-average *human* intelligence, it would be far less galling.

Do we need to understand the Reapers to defeat them? I thought that was one of the take-aways from Vigil's conversation. We don't need to understand the Reapers or win an argument with them to defeat them. Also, I always looked at the story as "life" defeating the Reapers, with Shepard and this cycle as one important aspect of it, but unable to defeath the Reapers on its own.

Vigil is an idiot in that, and ME sends an idiotic message in that. Maybe it's not necessary in the end that you understand them, but how would you ever *not* strive to understand your enemy in a war, try to discern what drives them, what they can do, on which principles their capabilities are based, maybe predict their moves? There mere idea that anyone would consider gathering such intelligence unimportant in a war is ludicrous.

Mass Effect: "Your task is not to understand them, but to stop them"
XCOM: Enemy Unknown: "How can we hope to defeat an enemy we don't understand?"

I find the  latter message much more plausible, and there's another thing XCOM gets right: Such knowledge *will* change you, it's inevitable. ME gives us the Catalyst as a convenient means to stay ignorant in the Lovecraftian sense, but I am firmly convinced that such ignorance is not an option.

I think that Vigil was refering specifically to Saren/Sovreign opening the Citadel relay, and not so much about understanding the Reapers in general. Understading the Reapers' motivations in that particular moment wouldn't matter since the Citadel relay opening would mean the end of the current cycle.

Though being able to ask Vigil questions on the subject did seem to deflate the urgency in the situation; what with Saren drawing ever closer to the Conduit; but that is something that happenes with regularity in Bioware games, case-in-point being the lengthy dialouge with the Catalyst while the united fleets of the galaxy are being decimated.

In viewing each of the two statments you listed as generalizations however, I would agree with you. Knowledge of enemy vulnerabilites, tactics, and even motivations is vital to successfully defeating a stronger/unkown foe. I enjoyed how X-COM actually delved into the process of reverse engineering the alien technology, preforming autopsies/interogations on the alien individuals, and how it did present the philisophical notion that such knowledge would change everything, forever. 

I would say however, that X-COM didn't end with humanity trying to solve the Etherals' delemia; to answer their question. I had my sniper, built with a reversed alien technology, and benifiting from knowledge of Etheral physiology, put a plasma round right through the alien leader's head. 

[Obadiah]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
The basic dissonance is more about intellect than power: we have entities with cognitive abilities and knowledge far beyond that of galactic civilization, and here comes a human of average intelligence, if that (let's face it, Shepard isn't the brightest if you take everything at face value), and "solves" it all through sheer defiance and determination, nothing of which is backed up by any kind of real argument. If Shepard had spoken at least with above-average *human* intelligence, it would be far less galling.

Do we need to understand the Reapers to defeat them? I thought that was one of the take-aways from Vigil's conversation. We don't need to understand the Reapers or win an argument with them to defeat them. Also, I always looked at the story as "life" defeating the Reapers, with Shepard and this cycle as one important aspect of it, but unable to defeath the Reapers on its own.

Vigil is an idiot in that, and ME sends an idiotic message in that. Maybe it's not necessary in the end that you understand them, but how would you ever *not* strive to understand your enemy in a war, try to discern what drives them, what they can do, on which principles their capabilities are based, maybe predict their moves? There mere idea that anyone would consider gathering such intelligence unimportant in a war is ludicrous.

Mass Effect: "Your task is not to understand them, but to stop them"
XCOM: Enemy Unknown: "How can we hope to defeat an enemy we don't understand?"

I find the  latter message much more plausible, and there's another thing XCOM gets right: Such knowledge *will* change you, it's inevitable. ME gives us the Catalyst as a convenient means to stay ignorant in the Lovecraftian sense, but I am firmly convinced that such ignorance is not an option.

I don't think you shouldn't strive to understand your enemy, its just not necessary to defeat them. One shouldn't get hung up on understanding one's enemy if the goal is to defeat them. The Reapers may have tried to portray themselves as magnitudes of orders higher than us on a intellectual level, and maybe they were, but I just don't see why that necessitates that we, their "average" enemy, should lose. It more just made the Reapers overconfident.

The thing is, you will never be able to determine in advance if such intelligence will be necessary to defeat your enemy, especially if they're more advanced than you. So you'll do your best to gather all such knowledge. If it turns out to be unnecessary, then you'll have wasted some effort, but if it turns out to be necessary, you would've lost the war without it. Now tell me: will you do your damnedest to gather such knowledge or not? That's why I call Vigil an idiot. The only way you can ever be confident you won't need that knowledge is if you can reasonably be confident in your victory based on what you already know about your and your enemy's capabilities, and you are about as far as possible from that in the Reaper War.

I think you're interpretting Vigil's comment in a somewhat over-broad fashion.

I'd spend time trying to understand the enemy's strengths, weaknesses, and tactics, but I think of everything else (culture, motivations - which is what Vigil was referring to when it said "what does it matter?" because the Reaper's were probably so alien and unknowable) as somewhat secondary and academic.

[AlanC9]

NeonFlux117 wrote...
 Also, the Reapers goals are not mystic or unquantifiable to us 'lesser races'. They are, and always have been straightforward-

Goal 1- To insure the survival and nourishment of the Reaper Armada and to ensure that the Reapers "harvest" continues. Self preservation.

Goal 2- Every cycle must end in the creation of a new reaper. Perfect in it's design. Humanity has been chosen for this cycle.

This doesn't actually explain why the Reapers want to have cycles in the first place, as I'm sure you'e aware. What's Goal 3?

[AlanC9]

Obadiah wrote...


I'd spend time trying to understand the enemy's strengths, weaknesses, and tactics, but I think of everything else (culture, motivations - which is what Vigil was referring to when it said "what does it matter?" because the Reaper's were probably so alien and unknowable) as somewhat secondary and academic.

Knowledge of enemy motivations can be quite useful in war. It lets you predict their actions better, and respond appropriately.

[Obadiah]

AlanC9 wrote...

Obadiah wrote...


I'd spend time trying to understand the enemy's strengths, weaknesses, and tactics, but I think of everything else (culture, motivations - which is what Vigil was referring to when it said "what does it matter?" because the Reaper's were probably so alien and unknowable) as somewhat secondary and academic.

Knowledge of enemy motivations can be quite useful in war. It lets you predict their actions better, and respond appropriately.

Understanding their tactics is probably more useful for that.

[nos_astra]

NeonFlux117 wrote...
Nah, Shepard is not an unstoppable juggernaut.

He was killed... Guess the author didn't play the beginning of ME2.

"When Shepard is killed in a Reaper-orchestrated attack, one of the most powerful human beings in the galaxy spends a vast fortune to resurrect him/her, because Shepard is the Only One Who Can Do It.  He/she is the Hero, the Chosen One."

Guess you didn't really read the article.

Modifié par klarabella, 08 janvier 2014 - 08:20 .

[nos_astra]

StreetMagic wrote...
"You were a tool. An agent for a singular purpose..."
He knew Shepard was motivated and crazy enough to go through the Omega 4 Relay.

I'm sure he could have found someone else to manipulate.

Not to mention that going through that relay was a pretty idiotic plan and he could have spend the money he used to resurrect Shepard on gathering intelligence.

It's a horribly contrived mess. I'm almost sure that no one really bothered to figure out TIM's motivation.

Modifié par klarabella, 08 janvier 2014 - 08:56 .

[AlanC9]

TIM's motivation is supposed to be a mess. Indoctrinated, remember?

[David7204]

klarabella wrote...

I'm sure he could have found someone else to manipulate.

The idea of people not being weak apparently frustrates you to no end, doesn't it?

Hmm. Now what does that say to me about you?

Modifié par David7204, 08 janvier 2014 - 09:03 .