Jesus ******, another thread about the endings. C'mon now. Just deal with it, damn.
And this is coming from a blatant hater of the the "high level stuff" and the "artistic integrity" of the endings of Overlord Hudson and his minion Walters.
You just gotta get over it. It's been awhile.
You could just let people continue on and mope about it. Complaining about complaining is unproductive.
Just a couple quick things on the conventional victory scenario I proposed upthread:
I like this route, and I'm not entirely certain why they didn't bother to go this way, since ME1 planted the idea that Sovereign couldn't simply attack because it would be too vulnerable. I guess a big problem comes right at the end, where suddenly, Sovereign can basically take on all of the fleets by itself, and Shepard was lucky that Sovereign was dumb enough to turn Saren into an I WIN button.
I like that you like my idea. 
As far as the battle with Sovereign goes, I try not to make too many inferences about the lore from cutscenes. The cutscenes can show us a lot of silly things that don't necessarily have series implications for the lore, like Shepard's body surviving re-entry and Jack being able to survive in full vacuum with nothing but a chest belt and a breather mask. In general, the Reapers have been exactly as powerful as the story needed them to be. In ME1, when we need to raise the stakes and make the outcome depend on Shepard, then Sovereign can take on the entire fleet himself. By ME3, when we need to dispense with bad guys quickly, one Cain suffices to take out that giant Reaper turret and a couple of "thanix missiles" will take out the Reaper Destroyer.
My problem with the above idea is this: out of millions of years of advanced cycles, some likely more advanced than the Protheans, none of this hasn't happened before. It also assumes that the Reapers don't have an adaptable Plan B for their only job (that they've been successful at since time immemorial), and that Sovereign was not just partly full of crap during his initial speech in ME1, he was entirely full of crap.
When I proposed this scenario in other places on these boards, I proposed just such a Plan B, which would involve the Reapers showing up but pretending that actually, they really mean no harm to us, and Sovereign was just off his rocker. The discovery by the galaxy as a whole that the Reapers did in fact create the relays and the Citadel becomes enough to persuade many that hey, maybe they're right and we should totally believe them, because imagine all the things we could learn from this super-advanced race. Meanwhile, they're accumulating forces by indoctrinating people left and right. It's left up the Shepard to prove to the galaxy that the Reapers are bad dudes who are full of BS.
This gives weight to the idea that "we evolve along the paths that the Reapers desire," because here, we would have the Reapers explicitly taking advantage of our indebtedness to them. It would also add to the significance of the Rannoch and Tuchanka arcs, since the Geth are the only other faction who know what the Reapers are about, and since the Quarians and Krogan, both marginalized by council politics, might be more amenable to the idea that maybe the Reapers aren't such great dudes.
At any rate, the original ending as it stands made out Sovereign to be completely full of crap anyways. In ME1, the Reapers think that organics are beneath contempt; by ME3, they're actually trying to save organic life from . . . something, I guess.
I believe the origins of the Reapers should've been left a mystery, they were MUCH more threatening and scary when we didn't know anything about them. ME3 should've only dropped ambiguous hints as to who the Reapers could be, and it's left to the player's interpretation. I've always been a huge fan of the Cthulu Mythos, that there's another plain of existence out there beyond human comprehension. I would've marked out like a fanboy if ME3 implied that there were unspeakable horrors that dwelled within the dark corners of the universe, and that the Reapers are just one of them. That there are some things out there that are even worse. It was just our Galaxy that the Reapers took interest in.
I only cared about stopping the Reapers, not getting to know them. Explaining the background of something that's immensely threatening, and still being able to maintain that intimidation when it's all said and done, is a difficult thing to write. Obviously Mac and Casey botched that one hard. The execution was horrible, but the idea of it was just "meh" to begin with. We've seen the Machines vs Humans thing done so many times in Science Fiction already. Bioware had the opportunity to try something different. To me it would've been a much better approach to combine Science Fiction with Horror when it came to the Reapers. Because Ancient Lovecraftian Machine Horrors, is waaaay f-ing cooler than them just being tools for the Catalyst, who's logic could be argued by a 10 year old.
I believe the origins of the Reapers should've been left a mystery, they were MUCH more threatening and scary when we didn't know anything about them. ME3 should've only dropped ambiguous hints as to who the Reapers could be, and it's left to the player's interpretation. I've always been a huge fan of the Cthulu Mythos, that there's another plain of existence out there beyond human comprehension. I would've marked out like a fanboy if ME3 implied that there were unspeakable horrors that dwelled within the dark corners of the universe, and that the Reapers are just one of them. That there are some things out there that are even worse. It was just our Galaxy that the Reapers took interest in.
I only cared about stopping the Reapers, not getting to know them. Explaining the background of something that's immensely threatening, and still being able to maintain that intimidation when it's all said and done, is a difficult thing to write. Obviously Mac and Casey botched that one hard. The execution was horrible, but the idea of it was just "meh" to begin with. We've seen the Machines vs Humans thing done so many times in Science Fiction already. Bioware had the opportunity to try something different. To me it would've been a much better approach to combine Science Fiction with Horror when it came to the Reapers. Because Ancient Lovecraftian Machine Horrors, is waaaay f-ing cooler than them just being tools for the Catalyst, who's logic could be argued by a 10 year old.
Does this apply to ME2 as well? In my view, once we learned how Reapers were made, we needed to know why. Thus, if they truly wanted the Reapers to be an unknowable force, they just come and kill everything. No "harvesting" no "ascension" no goo.
Does this apply to ME2 as well? In my view, once we learned how Reapers were made, we needed to know why. Thus, if they truly wanted the Reapers to be an unknowable force, they just come and kill everything. No "harvesting" no "ascension" no goo.
It does. Human Reaper was a stupid idea anyway.
It does. Human Reaper was a stupid idea anyway.
It does. Human Reaper was a stupid idea anyway.
Fair enough, but now we have to explain why the Reapers only wipe out advanced organic life in ME1, don't we?
Fair enough, but now we have to explain why the Reapers only wipe out advanced organic life in ME1, don't we?
Apparently not, if my recent conversations with one or two others are any indication.
Fair enough, but now we have to explain why the Reapers only wipe out advanced organic life in ME1, don't we?
Like I said I would've accepted it if the origins and purpose of the Reapers were left ambiguous.
I don't see why the motive couldn't have been just pure self-interest; the Reapers harvest us because it's somehow to their advantage to do so, and there's not much more to it than that. Here's a bit from Sovereign's speech in ME1:
"Organic life is nothing but a genetic mutation, an accident. Your lives are measured in years and decades. You wither and die. We are eternal, the pinnacle of evolution and existence. Before us, you are nothing. Your extinction is inevitable. We are the end of everything."
I don't see how anyone can look at something like this and think that the Reapers see organics as anything other than a means to an end at best.
I don't see why the motive couldn't have been just pure self-interest; the Reapers harvest us because it's somehow to their advantage to do so, and there's not much more to it than that. Here's a bit from Sovereign's speech in ME1:
"Organic life is nothing but a genetic mutation, an accident. Your lives are measured in years and decades. You wither and die. We are eternal, the pinnacle of evolution and existence. Before us, you are nothing. Your extinction is inevitable. We are the end of everything."
I don't see how anyone can look at something like this and think that the Reapers see organics as anything other than a means to an end at best.
Yeah what if the Reaper motivation was terrifyingly simple?
I don't see why the motive couldn't have been just pure self-interest; the Reapers harvest us because it's somehow to their advantage to do so, and there's not much more to it than that. Here's a bit from Sovereign's speech in ME1:
"Organic life is nothing but a genetic mutation, an accident. Your lives are measured in years and decades. You wither and die. We are eternal, the pinnacle of evolution and existence. Before us, you are nothing. Your extinction is inevitable. We are the end of everything."
I don't see how anyone can look at something like this and think that the Reapers see organics as anything other than a means to an end at best.
I can understand the need to understand them, but I can also see the logic behind simply stopping them as well. It's not so much to make them lovecraftian per se, but to keep them alien. You don't have to be lovecraftian to be suitably alien enough to play by a different set of rules or agenda.
Yeah what if the Reaper motivation was terrifyingly simple?
It wasn't though. It was actually rather complex and their perspective of it was something that we simply didn't have the same kind of view of based on their existing mandate. It's a case of blue and orange morality. Their motive, while known, might be incomprehensible. It doesn't need to be lovecraftian by any means.
I don't see why the motive couldn't have been just pure self-interest; the Reapers harvest us because it's somehow to their advantage to do so, and there's not much more to it than that. Here's a bit from Sovereign's speech in ME1:
"Organic life is nothing but a genetic mutation, an accident. Your lives are measured in years and decades. You wither and die. We are eternal, the pinnacle of evolution and existence. Before us, you are nothing. Your extinction is inevitable. We are the end of everything."
I don't see how anyone can look at something like this and think that the Reapers see organics as anything other than a means to an end at best.
But from a storytelling perspective, if you introduce the concept that they only kill advanced organic life and leave the less advanced, you have an obligation to explain that, right?
I don't see why the motive couldn't have been just pure self-interest; the Reapers harvest us because it's somehow to their advantage to do so, and there's not much more to it than that. Here's a bit from Sovereign's speech in ME1:
"Organic life is nothing but a genetic mutation, an accident. Your lives are measured in years and decades. You wither and die. We are eternal, the pinnacle of evolution and existence. Before us, you are nothing. Your extinction is inevitable. We are the end of everything."
I don't see how anyone can look at something like this and think that the Reapers see organics as anything other than a means to an end at best.
Because their extinction is systematic and calculated, and hinged on technology they built for galactic life. That renders the relays utterly pointless.
But from a storytelling perspective, if you introduce the concept that they only kill advanced organic life and leave the less advanced, you have an obligation to explain that, right?
This isn't clear to me at all. In The Birds, no explanation of why birds are attacking everyone is ever given. In Children of Men, several explanations for global infertility are suggested, but the film never answers which, if any, is the correct one. Further, I don't see why the explanation of why they kill only advanced civilizations couldn't be in terms of self interest. At any rate, it shouldn't be more difficult than explaining the harvest as something that's somehow for the good of organics or the galaxy as a whole.
Because their extinction is systematic and calculated, and hinged on technology they built for galactic life. That renders the relays utterly pointless.
So if the Reapers were killing us only out of self interest, they would do it in a completely haphazard manner? I don't see much reason to think that; if you're going to do something, do it efficiently. Further, you completely ignored the datum I introduced. If the Reapers had some plan in mind for us beyond using us to serve their own interests, why is Sovereign such a trash talker?
This isn't clear to me at all. In The Birds, no explanation of why birds are attacking everyone is ever given. In Children of Men, several explanations for global infertility are suggested, but the film never answers which, if any, is the correct one. Further, I don't see why the explanation of why they kill only advanced civilizations couldn't be in terms of self interest. At any rate, it shouldn't be more difficult than explaining the harvest as something that's somehow for the good of organics or the galaxy as a whole.
The Birds is essentially a horror movie where not explaining motivation is pretty standard, but I take your Children of Men point. Still that would mean the characters suggesting a few possibilities of why the Reapers act as they do, and that would probably be enough come to think of it.
It can be in terms of self-interest, I was just responding to the claim that no explanation was necessary. The Reapers could just be reaping advanced civilizations because they enjoy it more, for all I care. I'm not asking for another essay like we got at the end of ME3.
=So if the Reapers were killing us only out of self interest, they would do it in a completely haphazard manner? I don't see much reason to think that; if you're going to do something, do it efficiently. Further, you completely ignored the datum I introduced. If the Reapers had some plan in mind for us beyond using us to serve their own interests, why is Sovereign such a trash talker?
I don't see much reason behind waiting until they're technologically advanced enough to do damage to the Reapers, either.
Why wouldn't he be a trash talker? It still makes plenty of sense to demoralize an enemy, no matter what you plan on doing with them.
I don't see much reason behind waiting until they're technologically advanced enough to do damage to the Reapers, either.
The meta-level reason is obvious enough: If the Reapers didn't wait, the setting wouldn't be possible. This is Mass Effect, not Primitive Organics That Get Harvested Before You Can Do Anything About It: The Game. I didn't feel any particular pressure to extrapolate beyond this meta-level point. Like Film Crit Hulk, I tend not to obsess over plot inconsistencies or bits of lore that are left dangling. And even some of Sovereign's other dialogue (i.e. "By using [the relays], your civilization develops along the paths we desire") seemed a bit like a hand waive to explain how granting us relay technology was somehow conducive to their interests.
Why wouldn't he be a trash talker? It still makes plenty of sense to demoralize an enemy, no matter what you plan on doing with them.
This begs the question, if the Reapers had goals other than self-interest, why would they see us as enemies to begin with, to the point of committing genocide against every advanced civilization save their own? I have a very difficult time seeing how anything other than self-interest could motivate something like the harvest, and I think the problems with both the Catalyst and the Dark Energy rumors bear out this pretty clearly.
And if we're going this route, then the significance of the whole "Our numbers will darken the skies" business gets significantly diminished as well. If the goal is to intimidate, you're not going to say, "Well, it's just me and a couple of my drinking buddies here, but we'll get you!"
EDIT: Added some stuff.
I didn't feel any particular pressure to extrapolate beyond this meta-level point. Like Film Crit Hulk, I tend not to obsess over plot inconsistencies or bits of lore that are left dangling. And even some of Sovereign's other dialogue (i.e. "By using [the relays], your civilization develops along the paths we desire") seemed a bit like a hand waive to explain how granting us relay technology was somehow conducive to their interests.
There is a difference between nitpicking, and expecting general consistency
Does that guy have a non-caps version of his site? I get the gimmick but it's getting in the way of consumption.
Does that guy have a non-caps version of his site? I get the gimmick but it's getting in the way of consumption.
There is a difference between nitpicking, and expecting general consistency
I'd like to hear about more about what constitutes general consistency. It's worth noting that some of the most well-regarded works have flagrant inconsistencies. For example, in Terminator 2, how does the T-1000 go back in time? The answer is that he can't, because he's made of metal, and as was clearly explained in the original film, nothing 'dead' can go back in time. Of course, maybe Reese was just wrong about that, but then how come nobody brought back any ray guns with them? This kind of thing can get a bit annoying but doesn't really break movies for me; I tend to be more interested in the emotional logic of what's going on internally with the characters.
I've read him before and I agree, I just hate the caps because it hurts my eyes.
Anyway this seems like a relevant paragraph considering osbornep's argument that no explanation was necessary:
"SO LET'S QUALIFY IT LIKE THIS: THE MERE EXISTENCE OF A LOOSE END IS NOT NECESSARILY A PLOT HOLE, BUT THERE ARE INDEED LOOSE ENDS THAT CAN BE PLOT HOLES. THE PROBLEM IS THAT THERE'S A HUGE RANGE TO WHAT QUALIFIES A LOOSE END AND WHICH ARE IMPORTANT TO WHOM, SO HULK COULD JUST SIT BACK AND ARGUE THAT IT'S ALL A "CASE BY CASE" BASIS, WHICH IS TRUE... BUT THAT'S NOT REALLY ALL THAT HELPFUL. SO HULK WILL ARGUE THAT THE LOOSE ENDS THAT ACTUALLY QUALIFY AS PLOT HOLES HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH WANT, BUT INSTEAD WITH FUNCTION. (SENSING A THEME HERE?)"
In other words, I'd want there to be an explanation given the existence of a loose end (why do they only kill advanced life?) but the explanation isn't necessary for the plot to function unless it's the key to beating them, which it isn't since you essentially just end up charging a big laser.
I'm not entirely satisfied with that explanation, but I understand why osbornep would support it for Mass Effect, considering his views that the Reapers are really not the heart of the story but just the impetus that causes the intra-galactic community drama. Accordingly it's not necessary for them to be fleshed out or even interesting.
The fact that people are still beating this horse can be summed up in a few words:
Retour en haut