580 réponses à ce sujet

[GimmeDaGun]

StreetMagic wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

the org vs. synth conflict was not a major theme in mass effect and is in fact contradicted by the whole quarien/geth plot arc. the main theme was always human centrism vs. galactic collaboration.

That's how I saw it. If not, it's still the more interesting theme to me. I view the Reapers are just some party crasher. Like some obnoxious drunk who comes in farting and burping and hitting on everyone and telling bad jokes no one wants to hear.

OK, maybe not quite.. but you know what I mean.

It's like Mass Effect has the potential to be Game of Thrones in space, but they insist on including Sauron.

Well, unfortunatyl I did not see anything intricate and clever about the political aspects of the game. If you are a human-centrist or less open to aliens, you are automatically the evil renegade sith lord, but if you are a love all, be with all, embrace all type of guy, you are automatically the paragon of how people should think. Nah... if I want something intricate, I stick to more textured, less black and white games, like The Witcher. Mass Effect should remain what it set out to be, an epic sci-fi saga in space.

[SlottsMachine]

dreamgazer wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

I view the Reapers are just some party crasher. Like some obnoxious drunk who comes in farting and burping and hitting on everyone and telling bad jokes no one wants to hear.

OK, maybe not quite.. but you know what I mean.

What's amusing is that these drunken, farting, obnoxious party crashers would have been the real "good guys" in the DE ending.

Someone will have to enlighten me on the role of the Reapers in the supposed Dark Energy ending, but just in general terms I wouldn't have a problem with the Reapers ending up as the (ah yes) "good guys."
 

Modifié par General Slotts, 10 février 2014 - 10:58 .

[dreamgazer]

"Dark Energy was something that only organics could access because of various techno-science magic reasons we hadn't decided on yet. Maybe using this Dark Energy was having a ripple effect on the space-time continuum.

"Maybe the Reapers kept wiping out organic life because organics keep evolving to the state where they would use biotics and dark energy and that caused an entropic effect that would hasten the end of the universe. Being immortal beings, that's something they wouldn't want to see.

"Then we thought, let's take it to the next level. Maybe the Reapers are looking at a way to stop this. Maybe there's an inevitable descent into the opposite of the Big Bang (the Big Crunch) and the Reapers realise that the only way they can stop it is by using biotics, but since they can't use biotics they have to keep rebuilding society - as they try and find the perfect group to use biotics for this purpose. The asari were close but they weren't quite right, the Protheans were close as well.

"I find it funny that fans end up hearing a couple things they like about it and in their minds they add in all the details they specifically want," he explained. "It's like vapourware - vapourware is always perfect, anytime someone talks about the new greatest game. It's perfect until it comes out. I'm a little weary about going into too much detail because, whatever we came up with, it probably wouldn't be what people want it to be."

http://www.eurogamer...-trilogy-ending

[dreamgazer]

StreetMagic wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

I view the Reapers are just some party crasher. Like some obnoxious drunk who comes in farting and burping and hitting on everyone and telling bad jokes no one wants to hear.

OK, maybe not quite.. but you know what I mean.

What's amusing is that these drunken, farting, obnoxious party crashers would have been the real "good guys" in the DE ending.

They're the good guys in our current ending too. <_<

Not entirely, no.  Not anywhere near as much as they would be in stopping the spread of dark energy. 

[AresKeith]

dreamgazer wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

I view the Reapers are just some party crasher. Like some obnoxious drunk who comes in farting and burping and hitting on everyone and telling bad jokes no one wants to hear.

OK, maybe not quite.. but you know what I mean.

What's amusing is that these drunken, farting, obnoxious party crashers would have been the real "good guys" in the DE ending.

They're the good guys in our current ending too. <_<

Not entirely, no.  Not anywhere near as much as they would be in stopping the spread of dark energy. 

I think in both cases the Reapers were written to be the supposed "good guys who does evil things for the greater good" for the ending

[SlottsMachine]

Wow. That's just.... LOL.

[Dr_Extrem]

GimmeDaGun wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

GimmeDaGun wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

The Dark Energy plot and Synthetics/organics plot are both equally bad

without a doubt.

Not quite... just read my post above. The synthetic/organic plot could have been very good if it was handled with more care and if it was planned more carefully. There's no problem with that concept. It's the execution what makes it a bit off. 

The alternative would have been infinitely worse.

but there is no "if" ... this question is only of academic nature.

the org vs. synth conflict was not a major theme in mass effect and is in fact contradicted by the whole quarien/geth plot arc. the main theme was always human centrism vs. galactic collaboration.

so yeah IF synth vs. org has been a major theme from at least me2 onward and IF ther would have been proper buildup, without opposing arguments, it maybe could have worked. but not with me1, 2 and most parts of 3 in mind.


the synthetic characters we meet in mass effect are:
- the rogue financial ai from me1 - who just wanted to leave the citadel - the suicide was plan-b
- edi - who basically becomes the example that synthetic and organic life forms can coexists and help each other
- legion - who shows us, that the geth from me1 were only a rogue splinter group (who was altrered by "reaper gifts" that caused a specific calculation error) and that the bulk of the geth were in fact mostly harmless. (the even waited for the quariens to return home)


this buildup and the fact that sovi despised but used synthetics as tools of war/deception, make both plots equally aweful ... in addition, drews dark energy ending was only a rough concept and not fully evolved.

I'm kind of glad that they did not turn the game into a "politically correct, all for unity and liberal views = good vs. pragmatic, nationalist, conservative views = bad, racist" campaign game. I'm glad that they remained on the sci-fi path. I don't need the "this is how you should think" kind of brain-washing plot in a sci-fi action adventure in which you slaughter thousands of people and creatures. The game have such tendencies already, but thankfully it remains in the backround.

background? ... it constantly bites you in the face. in me1 we have ash and kaiden, who both represent one of those themes. ash is the human centrist and kaiden the cosmopolitan. it is one of the main themes on me1. in me2, humanity is suddenly special but most of the crewmembers are aliens - shepard gains strength through collaboration and in mass effect 3, jour goal is to unite the galaxy to face the reapers.

human centrism vs. galactic collaboration it is the most obvious and present of the themes.

[GimmeDaGun]

General Slotts wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

I view the Reapers are just some party crasher. Like some obnoxious drunk who comes in farting and burping and hitting on everyone and telling bad jokes no one wants to hear.

OK, maybe not quite.. but you know what I mean.

What's amusing is that these drunken, farting, obnoxious party crashers would have been the real "good guys" in the DE ending.

Someone will have to enlighten me on the role of the Reapers in the supposed Dark Energy ending, but just in general terms I wouldn't have a problem with the Reapers ending up as the (ah yes) "good guys."
 

Their goal is to save the galaxy from the dark energy which consumes it. It consumes it because of the organics' extensive use of it. So the reapers manipulate them to use it even more so they can harvest them faster and turn them into reapers. By turning them into reapers they collect the knowledge of the whole civilisation. With each harvested civilisation their knowledge would grow and by this they would have a better understanding of the dark energy problem. They are searching for a solution. But in the mean time they are all based on dark energy and its them who encourage organics to rely on dark energy (ME) technology and abuse it. So it's them who speed up the destruction of the galaxy.

During the current cylce they ran out of time... the galactocalypse is just around the corner. Their only hope is humanity, because humanity is so special. How convinient. So they need humanity to understand the problem and save the world. If you are the galaxy saving type you let the reapers harvest humanity so they can make their blind attempt, but if you are more of the LI abusing type you can switch them off by the crucible so you can live happily ever... well till the dark energy consumes you along with your LI and beloved squad and Earth.

[Dr_Extrem]

but anyway .. discussing which plot is/could have been worse is like discussing what is more toxic .. sarin or soman ...

bad is bad and dead is dead.

[GimmeDaGun]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

GimmeDaGun wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

GimmeDaGun wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

The Dark Energy plot and Synthetics/organics plot are both equally bad

without a doubt.

Not quite... just read my post above. The synthetic/organic plot could have been very good if it was handled with more care and if it was planned more carefully. There's no problem with that concept. It's the execution what makes it a bit off. 

The alternative would have been infinitely worse.

but there is no "if" ... this question is only of academic nature.

the org vs. synth conflict was not a major theme in mass effect and is in fact contradicted by the whole quarien/geth plot arc. the main theme was always human centrism vs. galactic collaboration.

so yeah IF synth vs. org has been a major theme from at least me2 onward and IF ther would have been proper buildup, without opposing arguments, it maybe could have worked. but not with me1, 2 and most parts of 3 in mind.


the synthetic characters we meet in mass effect are:
- the rogue financial ai from me1 - who just wanted to leave the citadel - the suicide was plan-b
- edi - who basically becomes the example that synthetic and organic life forms can coexists and help each other
- legion - who shows us, that the geth from me1 were only a rogue splinter group (who was altrered by "reaper gifts" that caused a specific calculation error) and that the bulk of the geth were in fact mostly harmless. (the even waited for the quariens to return home)


this buildup and the fact that sovi despised but used synthetics as tools of war/deception, make both plots equally aweful ... in addition, drews dark energy ending was only a rough concept and not fully evolved.

I'm kind of glad that they did not turn the game into a "politically correct, all for unity and liberal views = good vs. pragmatic, nationalist, conservative views = bad, racist" campaign game. I'm glad that they remained on the sci-fi path. I don't need the "this is how you should think" kind of brain-washing plot in a sci-fi action adventure in which you slaughter thousands of people and creatures. The game have such tendencies already, but thankfully it remains in the backround.

background? ... it constantly bites you in the face. in me1 we have ash and kaiden, who both represent one of those themes. ash is the human centrist and kaiden the cosmopolitan. it is one of the main themes on me1. in me2, humanity is suddenly special but most of the crewmembers are aliens - shepard gains strength through collaboration and in mass effect 3, jour goal is to unite the galaxy to face the reapers.

human centrism vs. galactic collaboration it is the most obvious and present of the themes.

I don't see Kaidan being the "cosmopolitan" guy. He's more like a laid back, quiet person who keeps to himself. Plus he has no positive opinion about the council either. But I don't see him being the opposite of Ash. They are just two different guys, with different backrounds. That's all. They don't represent any main theme in the game. There are several themes in ME. Non of them are main themes. It has a main plot, but several themes. 

Modifié par GimmeDaGun, 10 février 2014 - 11:13 .

[Dr_Extrem]

GimmeDaGun wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

GimmeDaGun wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

GimmeDaGun wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

The Dark Energy plot and Synthetics/organics plot are both equally bad

without a doubt.

Not quite... just read my post above. The synthetic/organic plot could have been very good if it was handled with more care and if it was planned more carefully. There's no problem with that concept. It's the execution what makes it a bit off. 

The alternative would have been infinitely worse.

but there is no "if" ... this question is only of academic nature.

the org vs. synth conflict was not a major theme in mass effect and is in fact contradicted by the whole quarien/geth plot arc. the main theme was always human centrism vs. galactic collaboration.

so yeah IF synth vs. org has been a major theme from at least me2 onward and IF ther would have been proper buildup, without opposing arguments, it maybe could have worked. but not with me1, 2 and most parts of 3 in mind.


the synthetic characters we meet in mass effect are:
- the rogue financial ai from me1 - who just wanted to leave the citadel - the suicide was plan-b
- edi - who basically becomes the example that synthetic and organic life forms can coexists and help each other
- legion - who shows us, that the geth from me1 were only a rogue splinter group (who was altrered by "reaper gifts" that caused a specific calculation error) and that the bulk of the geth were in fact mostly harmless. (the even waited for the quariens to return home)


this buildup and the fact that sovi despised but used synthetics as tools of war/deception, make both plots equally aweful ... in addition, drews dark energy ending was only a rough concept and not fully evolved.

I'm kind of glad that they did not turn the game into a "politically correct, all for unity and liberal views = good vs. pragmatic, nationalist, conservative views = bad, racist" campaign game. I'm glad that they remained on the sci-fi path. I don't need the "this is how you should think" kind of brain-washing plot in a sci-fi action adventure in which you slaughter thousands of people and creatures. The game have such tendencies already, but thankfully it remains in the backround.

background? ... it constantly bites you in the face. in me1 we have ash and kaiden, who both represent one of those themes. ash is the human centrist and kaiden the cosmopolitan. it is one of the main themes on me1. in me2, humanity is suddenly special but most of the crewmembers are aliens - shepard gains strength through collaboration and in mass effect 3, jour goal is to unite the galaxy to face the reapers.

human centrism vs. galactic collaboration it is the most obvious and present of the themes.

I don't see Kaidan being the "cosmopolitan" guy. He's more like a laid back, quiet person who keeps to himself. Plus he has no positive opinion about the council either. But I don't see him being the opposite of Ash. They are just two different guys, with different backrounds. That's all. They don't represent any main theme in the game. There are several themes in ME. Non of them are main themes. It has a main plot, but several themes. 

kaiden is reclusive because of his migrene. i am suffering from this as well and i avoid crowds and loud places as well.
kaidan on the other hand found out, that race does not matter its the character ... (when you talk with him about his time in braincamp and the turian instructor) "jerks and saints".

the council is a political instrument - kaiden has a negative opinion on them, because they ignore the signs not because they are aliens.

Modifié par Dr_Extrem, 10 février 2014 - 11:20 .

[AresKeith]

GimmeDaGun wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

background? ... it constantly bites you in the face. in me1 we have ash and kaiden, who both represent one of those themes. ash is the human centrist and kaiden the cosmopolitan. it is one of the main themes on me1. in me2, humanity is suddenly special but most of the crewmembers are aliens - shepard gains strength through collaboration and in mass effect 3, jour goal is to unite the galaxy to face the reapers.

human centrism vs. galactic collaboration it is the most obvious and present of the themes.

I don't see Kaidan being the "cosmopolitan" guy. He's more like a laid back, quiet person who keeps to himself. Plus he has no positive opinion about the council either. But I don't see him being the opposite of Ash. They are just two different guys, with different backrounds. That's all. They don't represent any main theme in the game. There are several themes in ME. Non of them are main themes. It has a main plot, but several themes. 

Even games with many themes can have main themes

[Mcfly616]

Uhh you left some stuff out. And some of that is false. While the whole "they're here to stop Dark Energy but they give us stuff that emits Dark Energy" is a known problem with the concept of the Dark Energy plot, it was never confirmed as part of the actual narrative, nor is there any way to know what way the concept would've been reworked and written in the grand scheme of things.

DK explained that in the MEU that only organics can manipulate Dark Energy (i.e. biotics). Which is why the Reapers reproduce by harvesting organic civilizations. The Human Reaper was supposed to be the answer to Dark Energy. An entire "special" organic civilization, bound together to combat the threat.

At the end of the game, the final choice was to have Shepard choose between sacrificing the human race and allowing it to be harvested into a Reaper and thereby defeating Dark Energy OR blowing the Reapers to hell and taking our chances.


It was never discussed or confirmed why Dark Energy is spreading in the MEU. Whether it's solely due to the relays and use of eezo, or if it's some unexplained cosmic phenomena, or if it's a bit of both. Either way, it's happening. (I can't help but think Drew was inspired once again by the Inhibitor Trilogy, as he was with so many other things in Mass Effect)

[ElitePinecone]

dreamgazer wrote...

What's amusing is that these drunken, farting, obnoxious party crashers would have been the real "good guys" in the DE ending.

Yeah.

Also, none of those explanations account for what the Reapers were like in ME1. Neither the mooted dark energy plot nor the actual ending (where all of galactic history was a footnote in a giant cuttlefish experiment) explain why the Reapers are so destructive, why they seem to take pleasure in killing organics, and why Sovereign was so haughty and cagey about his own origins. 

It feels like none of the writers had any flipping idea what they were doing when they made the Reapers, and so their motivations have changed two or three or four times over the course of the series. And frankly, it showed.

[Han Shot First]

Drew K's intended ending was terribad. The only positive is that it would be linked to the mass effect, and thus the series' title would make sense.

But turning the Reapers into misunderstood good guys?

Nope!

[maaaad365]

I don't think the dark energy theme is so bad, considering that STAR WARS was all about the conflict between the Dark Side of the Force and the Light Side. I liked the ME2 theme and I was hoping for a continuation of that in ME3.

But I understand why they changed the plot, not many people understood what was hapenning , they dumbed it down so everyone can get it : machines beating organics is easier to grasp than some dark invisible energy that destroys the universe.

[George Costanza]

I honestly think the ending would have been well received if they'd just tweaked it a bit. The ideas themselves are actually pretty interesting, I think. They're put across appallingly though.

[Derpy]

Why can't we all just forget about Shepard? I mean he is done. dead. no more Shepard. His story is over and it is time to start a new one. Why can't we all just think like this?

[Iakus]

Nate_Assassin wrote...

Why can't we all just forget about Shepard? I mean he is done. dead. no more Shepard. His story is over and it is time to start a new one. Why can't we all just think like this?

Because we don't want the next character to suffer a similar fate.

[Derpy]

iakus wrote...

Nate_Assassin wrote...

Why can't we all just forget about Shepard? I mean he is done. dead. no more Shepard. His story is over and it is time to start a new one. Why can't we all just think like this?

Because we don't want the next character to suffer a similar fate.

Just because they create a new character doesn't mean they will be killed off in a confusing manner... 

[Mcfly616]

maaaad365 wrote...

But I understand why they changed the plot, not many people understood what was hapenning , they dumbed it down so everyone can get it : machines beating organics is easier to grasp than some dark invisible energy that destroys the universe.

 bro.....ME2 had the most "dumbed down" plot in the trilogy. One could argue that it didn't even have a plot. Dark Energy was not the plot of ME2. It wasn't even concretely planned for the ending of the trilogy. It was an idea they planted seeds for (in case they decided to flesh it out and go in that direction for ME3). It was mentioned like 5 times in the game. 

Synthetics and Organics being in "conflict", that has been around since the beginning. BW went that route. 

[Mcfly616]

Nate_Assassin wrote...

iakus wrote...

Nate_Assassin wrote...

Why can't we all just forget about Shepard? I mean he is done. dead. no more Shepard. His story is over and it is time to start a new one. Why can't we all just think like this?

Because we don't want the next character to suffer a similar fate.

Just because they create a new character doesn't mean they will be killed off in a confusing manner... 

I'm not sure what all the rage is over the protagonist dying. Yeah, I hope it's emotional. It should be. But I fear the the player character's fate in nearly every game I play. And in a game such Mass Effect, against an invincible galaxy eating threat...I made the most of my time. I made my choices accordingly. I'm not sure where everybody all of the sudden just expects to control fate and their own mortality. There's always an end of the line, sometimes we're lucky enough to have some say in how we go out. 

And if people aren't feeling that type of focus, there's other games out there.

[Iakus]

Nate_Assassin wrote...

iakus wrote...

Nate_Assassin wrote...

Why can't we all just forget about Shepard? I mean he is done. dead. no more Shepard. His story is over and it is time to start a new one. Why can't we all just think like this?

Because we don't want the next character to suffer a similar fate.

Just because they create a new character doesn't mean they will be killed off in a confusing manner... 

Yeah well, I didn't think Bioware would make such a ridiculous decision in the first place.  Now I simply can't take it for granted anymore.

@McFly.  That's not the only issue.  Heck for me it's not even the biggest issue.  But it is the most blatantly obvious example of what was wrong with ME3 and especially its ending.  First saying "these are your Shepards" then forcing the player to literally burn "their Shepards" in some kind of artistic statement that is the exact opposite of player agency. 

I wanted to be a particupant of a story.  Not be told one.  If I wanted that I could take my pick of linear shooters that are out  there.