1765 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Fixers0 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Anyway, the larger point is that prothean scientists get to the Citadel, sabotage stuff, and the Relay doesn't open. I don't see how ME3 actually changes anything about this  except that some of Vigil's guesswork wasn't quite accurate.

We have a word for that. It's called retcon.

Is it still a "retcon" when an NPC guesses wrong about something? I don't have a problem with expanding the term that way, but usually I see it applied only to facts.

Modifié par AlanC9, 05 février 2014 - 06:33 .

[ImaginaryMatter]

AlanC9 wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Anyway, the larger point is that prothean scientists get to the Citadel, sabotage stuff, and the Relay doesn't open. I don't see how ME3 actually changes anything about this  except that some of Vigil's guesswork wasn't quite accurate.

We have a word for that. It's called retcon.

Is it still a "retcon" when an NPC guesses wrong about something? I don't have a problem with expanding the term that way, but usually I see it applied only to facts.

I guess it technically isn't a retcon but I usually like stories to adhere to a Chekhov's gun principle. In the case of Vigil, the game draws a lot of attention to what the thing says, so I think from a narrative point of view most of its speculation should be held up as correct, even though technically the VI is just speculating. The same holds true for Sovereign.

[AlanC9]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

I guess it technically isn't a retcon but I usually like stories to adhere to a Chekhov's gun principle. In the case of Vigil, the game draws a lot of attention to what the thing says, so I think from a narrative point of view most of its speculation should be held up as correct, even though technically the VI is just speculating. The same holds true for Sovereign.

Except that Sovereign turned out to be lying rather than mistaken, right?

I thought at the time that the Reapers themselves might be so indoctrinated that they did not have any idea why they were doing the cycles, but that's hard to reconcile with Harbinger and the Rannoch Reaper's dialogues.

[ImaginaryMatter]

AlanC9 wrote...

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

I guess it technically isn't a retcon but I usually like stories to adhere to a Chekhov's gun principle. In the case of Vigil, the game draws a lot of attention to what the thing says, so I think from a narrative point of view most of its speculation should be held up as correct, even though technically the VI is just speculating. The same holds true for Sovereign.

Except that Sovereign turned out to be lying rather than mistaken, right?

I thought at the time that the Reapers themselves might be so indoctrinated that they did not have any idea why they were doing the cycles, but that's hard to reconcile with Harbinger and the Rannoch Reaper's dialogues.

Ya, that's what I meant, Sovereign's case might be worse though -- at least for me, how Sovereign described the Reapers made them seem pretty cool. A lot of their menace evaporated as the series went on.

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

I thought at the time that the Reapers themselves might be so indoctrinated that they did not have any idea why they were doing the cycles, but that's hard to reconcile with Harbinger and the Rannoch Reaper's dialogues.

That is actually probably the best answer with the information we have.   At least if you look at it from a mirror while hanging upside down from the ceiling.

[CronoDragoon]

Sovereign lying about what? Independence? Why would the Reapers know about the Catalyst, or that he controls them?

[Iakus]

StreetMagic wrote...

I think we can deduce from how Walters writes those new comics that he doesn't actually play these games much. Vigil? What's that?

It's not a retcon. It's "stream of consciousness" writing. He's just going with the flow. In the moment. In the "zone". Because he's a Beatnik. That's why he wears those hates, y'know?

Heck, I think that we can deduce from the comics that Cerberus created the Reapers

[Artifex_Imperius]

congokong wrote...

7. Here's the biggest one: Shepard makes no real argument to convince Liara to stop her hunt.
    1. Shepard could point out that there still is a reaper threat.
    2. Saving the galaxy is more important than the hunt for 1 person.
    3. Liara should hate the collectors more than the shadow broker since the collectors are the ones that killed Shepard and wanted Shepard's body in the first place.
    4. Shepard and Liara seem oblivious to the possibility that Liara might get killed by Shadow Broker assassins. Her own secretary was a double agent for the Broker. That's extremely troubling.
    5. If Liara is obsessing over the Shadow Broker largely on Shepard's behalf then Shepard should tell her not to if Shepard wants her on the Normandy.

read through the comic mass effect: redemption. and mass effect homeworlds 4.

going after the shadow broker because he was in league with the collectors. liara needed to find out the connection. shadow broker wanted to give shepards body to the collectors. plus she needed to resuce feron a guy who helped recover your body from the shadow broker.

also it was through the shadow brokers vast information network. she was able to find clues about "the crucible."

Modifié par Artifex_Imperius, 05 février 2014 - 11:23 .

[ImaginaryMatter]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Sovereign lying about what? Independence? Why would the Reapers know about the Catalyst, or that he controls them?

And us being incapable of understanding, being beyond our comprehension, pinnacle of evolution, etc. The Catalyst managed to explain the Reaper position fairly well, albeit poorly, in the course of 3 minutes.

What I find bothersome is the notion that the Reapers wouldn't know about the Catalyst if they were actual sentient beings, since you would think they might have a few questions. If they are not sentient, then I wonder why they would have something of a personality distinct from the Catalyst or why they would bother to say anything at all.

[Ithurael]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

Sovereign lying about what? Independence? Why would the Reapers know about the Catalyst, or that he controls them?

And us being incapable of understanding, being beyond our comprehension, pinnacle of evolution, etc. The Catalyst managed to explain the Reaper position fairly well, albeit poorly, in the course of 3 minutes.

What I find bothersome is the notion that the Reapers wouldn't know about the Catalyst if they were actual sentient beings, since you would think they might have a few questions. If they are not sentient, then I wonder why they would have something of a personality distinct from the Catalyst or why they would bother to say anything at all.

Well the easy answer is that the new head writer and lead wrote the ending without peer review-thus leaving us with all these questions.

Objectivly (that means without headcanon) the Catalyst is a retcon. Whether or not it creates plotholes...maybe. Smudboy did a decent enough take on starjar ableit he can be a bit too analyitical for me sometimes.

[TheMyron]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Prologue.


I've got the ending figured out. The intro, OTOH, is just really dumb -- likely deliberately, for the new players.

Bioware had no business doing such a thing...

If you were new to the series and couldn't understand the plot because you started in the 3rd part of it; tough luck.

[CronoDragoon]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...
And us being incapable of understanding, being beyond our comprehension, pinnacle of evolution, etc. The Catalyst managed to explain the Reaper position fairly well, albeit poorly, in the course of 3 minutes.

Okay, but that would have been true for ANY explanation they gave for the Reapers. Now, if you assert that they should have never explained the Reapers, then okay, but I guarantee you a lot of people would have been pissed off. Moreover, they really had no choice but to give the why after delving so much into the how in ME2. If you don't know why they do what they do, then the how becomes a curiosity and nothing more.

And sorry, but given how many people don't actually understand even the basic tenets of the Catalyst's philosophy (see yo dawg meme) it's apparently beyond comprehension for a good deal of people on these boards, at least.

What I find bothersome is the notion that the Reapers wouldn't know about the Catalyst if they were actual sentient beings, since you would think they might have a few questions. If they are not sentient, then I wonder why they would have something of a personality distinct from the Catalyst or why they would bother to say anything at all.

But isn't that how Indoctrination works, ever since Saren? Sentient beings insisting they are independent and in control even though they aren't? I think the Reapers being controlled by the Catalyst while believing themselves independent is consistent with the series.

[Ithurael]

CronoDragoon wrote...

But isn't that how Indoctrination works, ever since Saren? Sentient beings insisting they are independent and in control even though they aren't? I think the Reapers being controlled by the Catalyst while believing themselves independent is consistent with the series.

That makes sense, except for this one line from the GlowJob:

"I embody the collective consciousness of all Reapers"

Indoctrination does not make you join in any collective, it just subverts your will. you remain "independant' (eg your mind is still your mind) just your mind is under control from Reaper influence. It does not join in a collective.

At least that is my take on what the lore presented us.

[Obadiah]

TheMyron wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Prologue.


I've got the ending figured out. The intro, OTOH, is just really dumb -- likely deliberately, for the new players.

Bioware had no business doing such a thing...

If you were new to the series and couldn't understand the plot because you started in the 3rd part of it; tough luck.

I think I understand that first encounter with the Alliance leaders. Basically, there were little to no preparations being made to deal with the Reaper invasion, so Shep's first advice was to evacuate. Then when he saw London, he realized there was no escape, so he tried to rally them to get them to resist. The Alliance leaders come across as a very sorry bunch tho - just not realistic at all.

Modifié par Obadiah, 06 février 2014 - 03:28 .

[TheMyron]

CronoDragoon wrote...

ImaginaryMatter wrote...
And us being incapable of understanding, being beyond our comprehension, pinnacle of evolution, etc. The Catalyst managed to explain the Reaper position fairly well, albeit poorly, in the course of 3 minutes.

Okay, but that would have been true for ANY explanation they gave for the Reapers. Now, if you assert that they should have never explained the Reapers, then okay, but I guarantee you a lot of people would have been pissed off. Moreover, they really had no choice but to give the why after delving so much into the how in ME2. If you don't know why they do what they do, then the how becomes a curiosity and nothing more.

And sorry, but given how many people don't actually understand even the basic tenets of the Catalyst's philosophy (see yo dawg meme) it's apparently beyond comprehension for a good deal of people on these boards, at least.

What I find bothersome is the notion that the Reapers wouldn't know about the Catalyst if they were actual sentient beings, since you would think they might have a few questions. If they are not sentient, then I wonder why they would have something of a personality distinct from the Catalyst or why they would bother to say anything at all.

But isn't that how Indoctrination works, ever since Saren? Sentient beings insisting they are independent and in control even though they aren't? I think the Reapers being controlled by the Catalyst while believing themselves independent is consistent with the series.

I didn't need an explanation for the Reapers;

it's as the Prothean beacon on Ilos (Vigil) said, "We don't know why the Reapers do what they do, but in the end what does it matter? Your survival depends on you stopping them, not understanding them."

Modifié par TheMyron, 06 février 2014 - 02:30 .

[CronoDragoon]

Ithurael wrote...
That makes sense, except for this one line from the GlowJob:

"I embody the collective consciousness of all Reapers"

Indoctrination does not make you join in any collective, it just subverts your will. you remain "independant' (eg your mind is still your mind) just your mind is under control from Reaper influence. It does not join in a collective.

At least that is my take on what the lore presented us.

I don't think they were going for a "hivemind" idea there personally. I think what the Catalyst is suggesting is that he is the library, and the Reapers are books in it. Adding another book adds to the "collective knowledge" of the library. So I actually see this process as independent of the Indoctrination part; likely the assimilation of the racemind happens soon after the Reaper is built.

[AlanC9]

TheMyron wrote...
I didn't need an explanation for the Reapers;

it's as the Prothean beacon on Ilos (Vigil) said, "We don't know why the Reapers do what they do, but in the end what does it matter? Your survival depends on you stopping them, not understanding them."

I hear this a lot. I don't understand why I should be content with a lame cop-out just because my Shepard would be.

I suppose the real problem is Bio borrowing Lovecraft tropes for something that's ostensibly sci-fi. Irrational b.s. plays OK in fantasy, or at least it's tolerable.

Modifié par AlanC9, 06 février 2014 - 05:51 .

[ImaginaryMatter]

CronoDragoon wrote...

ImaginaryMatter wrote...
And us being incapable of understanding, being beyond our comprehension, pinnacle of evolution, etc. The Catalyst managed to explain the Reaper position fairly well, albeit poorly, in the course of 3 minutes.

Okay, but that would have been true for ANY explanation they gave for the Reapers. Now, if you assert that they should have never explained the Reapers, then okay, but I guarantee you a lot of people would have been pissed off. Moreover, they really had no choice but to give the why after delving so much into the how in ME2. If you don't know why they do what they do, then the how becomes a curiosity and nothing more.

And sorry, but given how many people don't actually understand even the basic tenets of the Catalyst's philosophy (see yo dawg meme) it's apparently beyond comprehension for a good deal of people on these boards, at least.

What I find bothersome is the notion that the Reapers wouldn't know about the Catalyst if they were actual sentient beings, since you would think they might have a few questions. If they are not sentient, then I wonder why they would have something of a personality distinct from the Catalyst or why they would bother to say anything at all.

But isn't that how Indoctrination works, ever since Saren? Sentient beings insisting they are independent and in control even though they aren't? I think the Reapers being controlled by the Catalyst while believing themselves independent is consistent with the series.

I wouldn't say every explanation. For example, and I'm not promoting this, if the Reapers have some sort of non-linear view of time that could lead them to have goals that go beyond what humanity can truly understand.

If the Reapers were Indoctrinated wouldn't their Reaper brains have turned to mush? Unless they are like the Collectors. I think a bigger question would be why the Catalyst would bother creating Reapers that have sentience if it was just going to force them into servitude or create the illusion that they have freewill anyway, it just seems a little unnecessary (also, according to the Leviathans didn't the Catalyst only gain Indoctrination capabilites after several cycles?).

[ImaginaryMatter]

AlanC9 wrote...

TheMyron wrote...
I didn't need an explanation for the Reapers;

it's as the Prothean beacon on Ilos (Vigil) said, "We don't know why the Reapers do what they do, but in the end what does it matter? Your survival depends on you stopping them, not understanding them."

I hear this a lot. I don't understand why I should be content with a lame cop-out just because my Shepard would be.

I suppose the real problem is Bio borrowing Lovecraft tropes for something that's ostensibly sci-fi. Irrational b.s. plays OK in fantasy, or at least it's tolerable.

Doesn't soft science fiction (which I think Mass Effect falls under) qualify as fantasy? Only instead of magic you have 'technology'?

[wolfhowwl]

The actual arrival of the Reapers was pretty lame.