304 réponses à ce sujet

[Linkenski]

Why is everyone so obsessed with Shepard? In ME3 he kind of was a character but in ME1 and 2 he's just a static brick that we use to interact with the world. Give us any other character and the same amount of interactive dialogue and I'd feel the same way about that character as I did with Shepard. How can you miss Shepard as a character? He's not a well-written one. He's just our avatar... a damn good one because he's basically our character but at the end of the day if you zoom out a bit he's not a good character on paper. He's practically a Mary Sue I'd say.

[SwobyJ]

Cyber-organic constructs are still machines.

 

All ME2 does it challenge us on the idea of 'machine'.

 

"THE FLESH IS A MACHINE." -HARBINGER

 

Get it?

 

"THIS (cyberorganic) FORM IS FRAGILE."

"THIS (cyberorganic) BODY'S PAIN IS IRRELEVANT."

"THIS (cyberorganic) SHELL IS ONLY A VEHICLE."

"I (Reaper) AM LIMITLESS. YOU (Organic) ARE BACTERIA."

 

 

ME2 is 'pointless' all right. Oh wait, it actually offers us insight on how the Reapers view things. At least a little. And that little, we can largely reject like it seems all/most Shepards do. But at least the info is there.

 

 

 

EDIT: IMO Reapers are still very much machines. But they're not robots, that's all. Or at least, you can only view them as robots if you see any and all synthetic intelligences as robotic - and that's something Mass Effect allows, even if minimally by the end (but regardless, at the end) of the trilogy.

But are they purely cybernetic machines? No. Except maybe Sovereign. That still isn't quite clear to me lol.

[SwobyJ]

Why is everyone so obsessed with Shepard? In ME3 he kind of was a character but in ME1 and 2 he's just a static brick that we use to interact with the world. Give us any other character and the same amount of interactive dialogue and I'd feel the same way about that character as I did with Shepard. How can you miss Shepard as a character? He's not a well-written one. He's just our avatar... a damn good one because he's basically our character but at the end of the day if you zoom out a bit he's not a good character on paper. He's practically a Mary Sue I'd say.

 

Personally, because I think there's more to him than meets the eye.

 

But his story is over so whatever I guess. :S

[Switish]

It falls apart when Leviathan makes an AI to solve the problem of technology trying to kill organic life. 

 

 

Logic....

[Linkenski]

Had Shepard not died and rode into the sunset with LI--had the ending as it is not happened we would've still gotten an NME that had nothing to do with Shepard.

 

I think it's a shame that Bioware felt like it was necessary to kill off Shepard in nearly every outcome just to underscore "Shepard can't be in a future Mass Effect!". I remember back before it came out I shuddered every time they talked about "ME3 is the end of Shepard's journey" because I always feared it meant that he would die no matter what and I hate ending where the hero sacrifices himself. I really didn't think it was necessary but at the same time I don't want him in NME and I probably wouldn't have wanted that either had his story been closed off in a non-fatal way for his character.

 

 

It falls apart when Leviathan makes an AI to solve the problem of technology trying to kill organic life. 

 

 

Logic....

Also, I've never understood. The Leviathans are underwater creatures. Did they make an AI underwater and otherwise, why would they care when most of the havoc would probably be going on above the waters. I think the Leviathans as the creatures of origin feels quite bizarre and unimpressive for a progenitor story for the Reapers.

[Switish]

 

 

 

Also, I've never understood. The Leviathans are underwater creatures. Did they make an AI underwater and otherwise, why would they care when most of the havoc would probably be going on above the waters. I think the Leviathans as the creatures of origin feels quite bizarre and unimpressive for a progenitor story for the Reapers.

 

 

I dont really try to understand the lore behind the Leviathans, to me its just an extra DLC that helps gain more war assets. If I try to think of it logically, I think to myself why the hell we would recruit them if they are capable of enslaving all life as we know it. Its another ticking time bomb that complicates things even after the Reapers defeat.

[dreamgazer]

Also, I've never understood. The Leviathans are underwater creatures. Did they make an AI underwater and otherwise, why would they care when most of the havoc would probably be going on above the waters.

Their above-water thralls created the AI, and being underwater only works as a defense mechanism when threats don't know you're there. Maintaining their pawns, their tools, and spreading control across the galaxy was important to the Leviathans.

[SwobyJ]

 

Had Shepard not died and rode into the sunset with LI--had the ending as it is not happened we would've still gotten an NME that had nothing to do with Shepard.

 

I think it's a shame that Bioware felt like it was necessary to kill off Shepard in nearly every outcome just to underscore "Shepard can't be in a future Mass Effect!". I remember back before it came out I shuddered every time they talked about "ME3 is the end of Shepard's journey" because I always feared it meant that he would die no matter what and I hate ending where the hero sacrifices himself. I really didn't think it was necessary but at the same time I don't want him in NME and I probably wouldn't have wanted that either had his story been closed off in a non-fatal way for his character.

 

 

Also, I've never understood. The Leviathans are underwater creatures. Did they make an AI underwater and otherwise, why would they care when most of the havoc would probably be going on above the waters. I think the Leviathans as the creatures of origin feels quite bizarre and unimpressive for a progenitor story for the Reapers.

 

 

Two bits for me:

 

1)Leviathans use thralls that they dominate. The thralls made the AI. The AI is not made underwater.

 

2)Leviathans say 'tribute' is what they took from organics, and that the 'Reapers will pay their tribute in blood'. If blood is what the Leviathans think about when they say 'tribute', I can easily headcanon that the Leviathans... EAT organics. Carnivores. They 'care' for their 'animals' and then slaughter them, perhaps in more constant yet less devastating (when they happen)... CYCLES.

 

 

Anyway, they'd care because their pets and herds are messing with the soil of the farm (or whatever) and need a way to keep them in line.

 

Perhaps they have enough actual care for their thralls, since the thralls are in fact intelligent species (even if much less so than Leviathans), that they did want to solve a problem of them, off in other less-Leviathan-controlled systems, making AIs that kill them, that the Leviathans have to pop over to and put down.

 

Good intentions. lol

[SwobyJ]

I dont really try to understand the lore behind the Leviathans, to me its just an extra DLC that helps gain more war assets. If I try to think of it logically, I think to myself why the hell we would recruit them if they are capable of enslaving all life as we know it. Its another ticking time bomb that complicates things even after the Reapers defeat.

 

Because we're taking anything that can hold a gun.

 

Or anything that can control someone to hold a gun.

 

Though yes, I'd have preferred an option to say 'no wai!'.

 

I think it would have worked better if we saw a Reaper in the 2nd mission or whatever, get beat by a Leviathan. Then trying to recruit them in the 3rd mission would have made more sense for most Shepards. "I know that's dangerous, but it beats Reapers, and WE NEED THINGS THAT BEAT REAPERS."

[KaeserZen]

@OP : For me, the game falls apart right at the magic elevator. Everything after that point is highly unsensical to me.

Not counting the Indoctrination Theory, I think I would have been greatly satisfied with ME3 if the ending happened liked this :

 

* No Catalyst scene or elevator to Heaven, and no further context elements (destroying technology, mixing DNA)

* TIM/Anderson moment after which you go to the console and dock the Crucible

* (Harbinger boss fight, optional but pretty kick ass nonetheless)

* At which point, you give two choices : Control or Destroy by choosing an option on the console.

* Ending cinematic

And voila, pretty palatable even with the weird atmosphere of the last segment ! Even moreso because the third act from Thessia onward is about the moral dilemma between Control and Destroy.

 

They didn't need to try and explain the purpose to the Reapers in the main game. They don't explain how the Crucible works either and I felt it could have been a good "defeating the uncomprehensible with the unknown" a good "leap of faith" moment.

 

As for the overarching plot, it loses focus right after being revived in ME2. I really liked the experience but it felt more as a side vignette than a continuation of the Reaper arc. Which is okay because I felt it worked pretty well in exploring and making us care about the galaxy and its inhabitants.

As a standalone, the Collectors work pretty well in my humble opinion. They were creepy and threatening enough to interest me. But they seemed to have been ditched pretty quickly in ME3.

[Linkenski]

First of all I disagreed with how the plot went about in me3 almost the entire way, at least the high-level main plot, but of course that's too late to be grumpy about now.

I think the climax should've been rewritten entirely to incorporate TIM better in the plot and perhaps let him actually prove he can use the Crucible to control instead of blurting it out with no sensible theory. I thought he should've first and foremost have explained why it was necessary in his viewpoint but he never did at any point in the game, because of a weak ass excuse "lolwutindoctrination"

Are you seriously saying the reapers indoctrinated a leader and his organisation to make them think they can control the reapers to make them indoctrinate themselves. It seems too random. Saren's indoctrinated reasoning made more sense than that. He argued that we were all doomed if the- reapers entered, which they inevitably would, and that infusing with their own technology could make us survive as pawns.

Illusive Man makes no sense in ME3 and he was too good of a character to simply get indoctrinated and become a watered down copy of Saren.

All throughout ME3 I had a feeling he was just indoctrinated and watered down and it pissed me the hell off. He should've outsmarted the Reapers proving again that this cycle was different and having the "end justifies the means" principle win in the end would've been morally grey when it's about everyone surviving and it could've caused some great choice consequence moments.

IMO the Catalyst should not have been in the plot. TIM should've been the Savior but you should still be left with the choice if you wanted to control the reapers or destroy them, possibly more options along with it.

[Valmar]

I think the climax should've been rewritten entirely to incorporate TIM better in the plot and perhaps let him actually prove he can use the Crucible to control instead of blurting it out with no sensible theory. I thought he should've first and foremost have explained why it was necessary in his viewpoint but he never did at any point in the game, because of a weak ass excuse "lolwutindoctrination"

Are you seriously saying the reapers indoctrinated a leader and his organisation to make them think they can control the reapers to make them indoctrinate themselves. It seems too random. Saren's indoctrinated reasoning made more sense than that. He argued that we were all doomed if the- reapers entered, which they inevitably would, and that infusing with their own technology could make us survive as pawns.

Illusive Man makes no sense in ME3 and he was too good of a character to simply get indoctrinated and become a watered down copy of Saren.

All throughout ME3 I had a feeling he was just indoctrinated and watered down and it pissed me the hell off. He should've outsmarted the Reapers proving again that this cycle was different and having the "end justifies the means" principle win in the end would've been morally grey when it's about everyone surviving and it could've caused some great choice consequence moments.

IMO the Catalyst should not have been in the plot. TIM should've been the Savior but you should still be left with the choice if you wanted to control the reapers or destroy them, possibly more options along with it.

 

The Illusive Man does try to explain to Shepard why his way is necessary. You may not agree with his reasoning but it is there. So saying "he never did it at any point" isn't fair.

 

Personally TIM is one of my favorite characters in gaming. So I do wish they had done more with him. That being said however the comics and the prothean VI on Thessia reveal to us something rather stunning: the possibility that The Illusive Man has been indoctrinated this entire time. Even before ME3. While it isn't necessarily the approach I would had taken I still think its an interesting story arc in its own right. I used to be pretty annoyed at how Cerberus are treated in ME3. With the insight of the comics and viewed in the context of the prothean VI's revelation... I'm more satisfied with it. It's pretty deep.

 

Still not the way I would have went with it, though.

[von uber]

You shouldn't have to read additional comics and novels to make sense of the plot or characters of a computer game.
By all means have them as additional fluff but the games should be able to stand on their own two feet.

[Display Name Owner]

"I control the Reapers". That one line just completely shatters everything that was the least bit cool about the central (ostensibly) antagonists. Reduced to the playthings of some electro zombie hallucination boy.

 

Really, as soon as the Catalyst appears in the form of that little boy and opens his little mouth I get mildly annoyed. I can swallow the explanations for everything now, have been able to since the EC, but the way it's delivered is kind of irritating. I just really hate that kid...

[wright1978]

It falls apart well before the horrendous starbrat rumbles onto stage to reveal that Shep's going to lose and the only question is how he/she is going to be allowed to lose.

[Joseph Warrick]

When Shepard gets lifted up. Basically the moment MEHEM takes over and fixes the ending.

[God]

Why is everyone so obsessed with Shepard? In ME3 he kind of was a character but in ME1 and 2 he's just a static brick that we use to interact with the world. Give us any other character and the same amount of interactive dialogue and I'd feel the same way about that character as I did with Shepard. How can you miss Shepard as a character? He's not a well-written one. He's just our avatar... a damn good one because he's basically our character but at the end of the day if you zoom out a bit he's not a good character on paper. He's practically a Mary Sue I'd say.

 

Some people, myself included, like blank-slate characters.

 

To you, he might be a brick. To me, he's a canvas.

[God]

When Shepard gets lifted up. Basically the moment MEHEM takes over and fixes the ending.

 

Non-canon fanfiction does not fix the ending objectively.

[God]

You shouldn't have to read additional comics and novels to make sense of the plot or characters of a computer game.
By all means have them as additional fluff but the games should be able to stand on their own two feet.

 

I disagree with this to an extent. I don't think the outside material should have to be extraneous fluff.

 

Dragon Age does this. They definitely implement the non-game material heavily into the story.

 

Halo is also doing this as well, and I approve of it, except when it the material itself isn't good. I can't stand the story of the Spartan IV's for the most part.

[Arcian]

Nah, ME2 keeps it together reasonably well.

ME1 is where it falls apart.

No, I'm pretty sure the Book of Genesis is where it falls apart.

[nos_astra]

Some people, myself included, like blank-slate characters.

 

To you, he might be a brick. To me, he's a canvas.

The game is not nearly responsive enough.

 

Reluctant leader?

Selfish and violent?

Devil may care?

Loyal to the Alliance?

Loyal to the Council?

Loyal to Cerberus?

 

The game plays out the exact same way and everyone reacts the same way. There is no sense of memory of what Shepard has done or a sense of who Shepard is. Everyone distrusts Shepard no matter his/her actions if the plot demands it and everyone naively expects Shepard to do the right things even with a track record that screams FIND SOMEONE ELSE FFS!

[Ithurael]

No, I'm pretty sure the Book of Genesis is where it falls apart.

It all fell apart here

[1:1]In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth,

 

Thanks a lot God...you ruined Mass Effect!! Everything is ruined!! Ruined!!!!

 

*storms off in hello kitty pjs

[God]

No, I'm pretty sure the Book of Genesis is where it falls apart.

 

I created man, and made women from ribs.

 

What's so hard to believe about that? 

[Pasquale1234]

*storms off in hello kitty pjs

You have hello kitty jammies?

I'm jealous. 

[God]

It all fell apart here

[1:1]In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth,

 

Thanks a lot God...you ruined Mass Effect!! Everything is ruined!! Ruined!!!!

 

*storms off in hello kitty pjs

 

For some people, I imagine that's the issue with the ME3 ending.

 

They don't want to blame their own expections and wishes as unrealistic and poor storytelling. So I get blamed. 

 

Typical humans.