But there can be value in the search for the truth itself and there can be value in the failure to find it.
It all depends on how it's presented and whether the writer can make it more than just a 'shoulder shrug'.
There's no dichotomy.
Again, it can be done and it has been done before.
exactly, its like if someones got a gun to your head, at your last moments even if it doesnt really change anything youre still going to ask, why? Why are you doing this? Its very poignant in that sense.
It would probably help me understand your argument if you could explain how it relates to my point.
What he's trying to say is that there comes a point in real life and point in writing (that's oddly inversely proportional) where you have to go around looking for the grey in everybody, because there are no black and white characters. But that's all you want. "Gimme bad guys. Shoot them. Ha! Ha! Ha! You're dead!"
Well, that's great, it's not what makes BioWare great though. What makes BioWare great is the fact that they do have grey characters.
What he's trying to say is that there comes a point in real life and point in writing (that's oddly inversely proportional) where you have to go around looking for the grey in everybody, because there are no black and white characters. But that's all you want. "Gimme bad guys. Shoot them. Ha! Ha! Ha! You're dead!"
Well, that's great, it's not what makes BioWare great though. What makes BioWare great is the fact that they do have grey characters.
You can still do that though, regardless of whether or not the writer makes a special effort to emphasize the greyness.
And besides, you should assume that every behavior has a cause, or reason. You should not need to know that exact reason in order to be able to perceive characters as grey rather than black and white.
And if the behavior is as complex as is the case here, then it is all the more unnecessary to spell it out word for word.
There's still room for greyness in, for example, the following consideration: 'These creatures are vastly wiser than us, hence they would not resort to such extreme measures frivolously. They must have a good reason.'
The story can still have you trying to understand that reason, it should in fact. And perhaps it could make you feel as though you are close to success at certain points, but ultimately have you fail, whereupon you may stumble on a very valuable realization.
There's tons of potential there.
I was anticipating the Why ever since ME2 brought up the How. Why would it matter how Reapers are made unless we were going to delve into the reason all this was being done? If you want to make the Reapers a mystery, then I can get on board with that. But once you start trying to solve that mystery, I'm going to expect the plot thread to end up somewhere other than a shoulder shrug.
My personal preference would be to roll with the Leviathan background, except drop the Catalyst and really focus on the Leviathan's fatal flaw. The Leviathans made the Reapers because they believed they could get AI right after their vassal races kept failing and getting owned. They made Harbinger and the other cuttlefish, they rebelled. Being made in the image of the Leviathans, the Reapers believe they are organic life perfected (being immortal versions of history's apex species) and start developing cycles to keep ascending races and adding to their perfect existence. There, I've tied in Sovereign's disdain for organics with Harbinger's ascension spiel and the Leviathan backstory, and all without the Catalyst.
And a "and then we nuke them all with our Dues Ex Crucible" and the multiple epilogues of the EC and you pretty much have an acceptable entry in the ME series.
What he's trying to say is that there comes a point in real life and point in writing (that's oddly inversely proportional) where you have to go around looking for the grey in everybody, because there are no black and white characters. But that's all you want. "Gimme bad guys. Shoot them. Ha! Ha! Ha! You're dead!"
Well, that's great, it's not what makes BioWare great though. What makes BioWare great is the fact that they do have grey characters.
Oh yeah, I've got no interest in grey characters. I've been playing Bioware games for years because of their stellar combat mechanics. 
But I can see you're not interested in a real discussion about this, so I'm done here. You refuse to even try to see my point, and that won't change.
You can still do that though, regardless of whether or not the writer makes a special effort to emphasize the greyness.
And besides, you should assume that every behavior has a cause, or reason. You should not need to know that exact reason in order to be able to perceive characters as grey rather than black and white.
And if the behavior is as complex as is the case here, then it is all the more unnecessary to spell it out word for word.
There's still room for greyness in, for example, the following consideration: 'These creatures are vastly wiser than us, hence they would not resort to such extreme measures frivolously. They must have a good reason.'
The story can still have you trying to understand that reason, it should in fact. And perhaps it could make you feel as though you are close to success at certain points, but ultimately have you fail, whereupon you may stumble on a very valuable realization.
There's tons of potential there.
Right, but that leads to claims about pedantics and limited morale scope. It can't be as simple as, "Hey, we did it for the lols." But here, you're claiming that's their morality?
EDIT : And plus, I've got too much #$^( happening in my life to assume anything right now. Especially the causes as to why a character did something.
EDIT x 2 : What I think after rereading your post, is you want a story with a morale ending. Where it's supposed to teach you something. I've heard that many Japanese games are extremely good at this.
Lose my internet for a week when I come back we're listening to Johnny Cash in Andromeda.
*does the shepard dance*
(No I still don't like jet packs but at least it looks cool.)
Lose my internet for a week when I come back we're listening to Johnny Cash in Andromeda.
*does the shepard dance*
(No I still don't like jet packs but at least it looks cool.)
Jet packs are awesome!
It'll probably be like the original Mako's jets that only went off for a short time. I think it will be neat. They'll be able to add some verticalness to the levels easier now. Not that the game needed it but It could be neat.
will the booster work if you have a shotgun acroos your lower back though? that is the question
It'll probably be like the original Mako's jets that only went off for a short time.
I'm really looking forward to navigating planets with jetpack characters and the mako, so tired of these open world games where the level designers are afraid to add anything interesting like cliffs because it would be a huge pain to navigate on foot or impossible for a horse.
Do I need to play the older game to play Andromeda?
As far as we know, no. This is a new entry in the series and - honestly - a good entry point for the series.
I'm pretty certain you won't need to play the older games. I do however suspect the experience of playing ME:A will be better if you have played its predecessors. And you should - they're very good games.
So it's only OK if the PC gets to show the villain The Error Of His Ways? Interesting. Could you get into why that's a problem for you? Also, did Sarevok get a pass because you don't learn that he was wrong about everything until after BG is over?
Let's take Malak off the list, actually. He's wrong about how his destiny worked, but no other Force user is able to foresee things any better than he did (though Palpatine did pretty well up until the last few minutes). It seems to be a rule of the setting that you only get enough information to be able to draw wrong conclusions.
It depends on the story being told. However, I said argue. It wasn't a necessity that Shepard be able to actually convice the Catalyst, but it was necessary to let us really argue, defy him, and still win. That's what's so troublesome about the refuse ending. Shepard doing what he's been doing the entire series ends with failure, and lack of character growth was not plot line. Also, the Catalyst gets to lecture you and is attempting to convince you that he's right, so argument is appropriate.
Sure, Mass Effect was a 3rd person shooter, but what was most important about it was dialogue. That was how we spent a lot of our time. It's what drew us into the universe because it is what lets you learn about the characters and different species we all love (or don't). We were told constantly throughout the game that we can't win in a fight, even with all the advancements from Sovereign. So winning through dialogue makes sense, especially since they could have designed it to have choices help or hurt your case.
Why doesn't it?
This was referring to my claim that he Collectors and Cerberus being servants of the Reapers didn't excuse them being the primary antagonists. We already had Reapers working through a proxy army in the first game. I think ME2 should have done one of several things.
1) Be against a truly unknown threat. The Collectors themselves could have worked, but it should have been something knew, not something everyone but Shepard knows about, unless they make it clear that they just showed up in the two years Shepard was out of commission. (On that note, Shepard shouldn't have died.)
2) Be against actual Reaper forces. Whether this was Indoctrinated servants like in Arrival, which would still allow for some suspense or mystery and keep Indoctrination as a theme, or against various kinds of Husk like enemies, including those we see deployed by the Collectors.
3) Cerberus, though not Indoctrinated. Cerberus as an antagonist that wanted to Control rather than destroy the Reapers would have worked in the second act. It would be in direct contrast to Saren, who was under their control and argued for submission.
While it does make sense to have an antagonist harassing you in the 3rd game, they shouldn't be the primary threat considering how the Reapers are everywhere and are so powerful. At least in Dragon Age Origins, you were operating in an area where the Darkspawn Blight was on it's way, but wasn't quite there yet until the end.
That is a completely terrible idea.
How 'plausible' it is is really entirely irrelevant. There is no end of perfectly 'plausible' events that would nonetheless make absolutely garbage fiction and writing.
Players would easily see this for what this is. A ridiclous cop-out by the writers.
More to the point, Bioware repeatedly uses this cop-out in ME1 and it's nonsense there too. You can ask Vigil what the possible end goal of the reapers is, and its reply is that your meant to kill them, not understand them. Which is clearly just writer expy dialogue.
That's not necessarily true. What Vigil said is correct. The "why" isn't important now. It would be pretty tough to never tell the player, but it didn't have to be complex. Personally, particularly due to Sovereign's revelation that they leave technology so civilizations develop in predictable and desired way, I assumed the Reapers simply wanted to steal resources and ensure no civilization ever grew enough to threaten them. One of your squadmates will even suggest this after talking to Sovereign.
It very much is the last time they see it unless a sequel happened to be green light. That's the last word on the reapers in ME1.
While they might not have known they would get a sequel, it's clear that one was planned.
That's a stupid analogy. First of all, dinosaurs have an obvious motivation. They're dinosaurs. As you said, they're aggresive animals who eat people. That's not an unknown motivation at all. It's perfectly well known motivation.
Secondly, and more importantly, the story goes absolutely out of its way to establish a very specific pattern that indicates the Reapers are doing this for an important reason. It goes absolutely out of its way to get the player to be intrigued by them and wonder why. You're completely wrong. Players absolutely care why the Reapers are doing it. You're going to try and claim there wasn't a great deal of discussion of the Reapers' motives before ME 3 came out?
Well the Catalyst does argue that it's just doing what it was meant to do, much like dinosaurs. But no, there was not a focus on the "why" of the Reapers. It was always about beating them, and ME2 should have been about "how". Personally, I was always more interested in what the Reapers were more than why they are attacking. I wanted a better answer than we got to explain what Sovereign meant by "There is a realm of existence so far beyond your own, you can not even imagine it," "I am beyond your comprehension," and "we are each a nation", etc. I wanted to get into their origins because they could not be as eternal as Sovereign claimed. But that took a DLC for me to get.
Ehhh, not for me. If I had some generic third person shooter and we had absolutely no clue about why they were doing what they were doing, I'll pass.
I have got to find a reason to care. If that's not there, then count me out, color me gone. It was the humanization (agreed though, starkly absurd) of the reapers and their morals that did it. Also, it was all the suspense leading up to that realization.
Why would the Reapers' motivation be your reason to care? The series was built on it's characters and universe. They were your reason to care.
Yes, it is true.
From the very first word that Sovereign spoke to the very last word that the Rannoch reaper (or Leviathan, depending on which you played last) spoke, they were dropping hints. And the catalyst, all he was there to do was to boil it down simply to one word. Chaos.
That's not true. I don't think the Catalyst was even an idea when Mass Effect and Sovereign's dialogue was written.
But there was promise of the answer. Search for answers was main part of the plot after all.
Saying "there are evil guys who try to kill us, let's kill them back" is Doom level of writing. Did you enjoy it's plot?
Where was searching for "why" part of the plot?
I'm pretty certain you won't need to play the older games. I do however suspect the experience of playing ME:A will be better if you have played its predecessors. And you should - they're very good games.
At the very minimum it would be a good idea to let people know why we're not in the milky way.
Gotcha. Our difference here is on the necessity of it. I classify the argument as one of those nice-to-have RP things, like Refuse. ( If I had been prioritizing stuff for the EC I would have put this above Refuse, FWIW.) Talking down crazy AIs hasn't been a thing in ME, unlike Trek, so a lot of my Shepards wouldn't have bothered anyway. Honestly, when I first played it I was just glad that Shepard didn't engage in the empty bluster of the Sovereign conversation.It depends on the story being told. However, I said argue. It wasn't a necessity that Shepard be able to actually convice the Catalyst, but it was necessary to let us really argue, defy him, and still win. That's what's so troublesome about the refuse ending. Shepard doing what he's been doing the entire series ends with failure, and lack of character growth was not plot line. Also, the Catalyst gets to lecture you and is attempting to convince you that he's right, so argument is appropriate.
Gotcha. Our difference here is on the necessity of it. I classify the argument as one of those nice-to-have RP things, like Refuse. ( If I had been prioritizing stuff for the EC I would have put this above Refuse, FWIW.) Talking down crazy AIs hasn't been a thing in ME, unlike Trek, so a lot of my Shepards wouldn't have bothered anyway. Honestly, when I first played it I was just glad that Shepard didn't engage in the empty bluster of the Sovereign conversation.
The Sovereign conversation was just such a joke. I couldn't stop laughing at "... and machines can be broken."
This is the most anticipated game for 2016! Really the most interested game from E3 also. I hope Bioware will do their job good. From what was seen so far it looks amazing ! Keep the work in this direction and it will be a grand success ! I hope this will be the most diverse game ever made!
Nice to see they have a name for the new ME 2016
The Sovereign conversation was just such a joke. I couldn't stop laughing at "... and machines can be broken."
I started at "we have no beginning" part. Reapers were from the start the weakest written part of the lore/franchise IMO.
I'm pretty certain you won't need to play the older games. I do however suspect the experience of playing ME:A will be better if you have played its predecessors. And you should - they're very good games.
Bah, everyone knows the latest game is the best place to start!
It depends on the story being told. However, I said argue. It wasn't a necessity that Shepard be able to actually convice the Catalyst, but it was necessary to let us really argue, defy him, and still win. That's what's so troublesome about the refuse ending. Shepard doing what he's been doing the entire series ends with failure, and lack of character growth was not plot line. Also, the Catalyst gets to lecture you and is attempting to convince you that he's right, so argument is appropriate.
Sure, Mass Effect was a 3rd person shooter, but what was most important about it was dialogue. That was how we spent a lot of our time. It's what drew us into the universe because it is what lets you learn about the characters and different species we all love (or don't). We were told constantly throughout the game that we can't win in a fight, even with all the advancements from Sovereign. So winning through dialogue makes sense, especially since they could have designed it to have choices help or hurt your case.
This was referring to my claim that he Collectors and Cerberus being servants of the Reapers didn't excuse them being the primary antagonists. We already had Reapers working through a proxy army in the first game. I think ME2 should have done one of several things.
1) Be against a truly unknown threat. The Collectors themselves could have worked, but it should have been something knew, not something everyone but Shepard knows about, unless they make it clear that they just showed up in the two years Shepard was out of commission. (On that note, Shepard shouldn't have died.)
2) Be against actual Reaper forces. Whether this was Indoctrinated servants like in Arrival, which would still allow for some suspense or mystery and keep Indoctrination as a theme, or against various kinds of Husk like enemies, including those we see deployed by the Collectors.
3) Cerberus, though not Indoctrinated. Cerberus as an antagonist that wanted to Control rather than destroy the Reapers would have worked in the second act. It would be in direct contrast to Saren, who was under their control and argued for submission.
While it does make sense to have an antagonist harassing you in the 3rd game, they shouldn't be the primary threat considering how the Reapers are everywhere and are so powerful. At least in Dragon Age Origins, you were operating in an area where the Darkspawn Blight was on it's way, but wasn't quite there yet until the end.
That's not necessarily true. What Vigil said is correct. The "why" isn't important now. It would be pretty tough to never tell the player, but it didn't have to be complex. Personally, particularly due to Sovereign's revelation that they leave technology so civilizations develop in predictable and desired way, I assumed the Reapers simply wanted to steal resources and ensure no civilization ever grew enough to threaten them. One of your squadmates will even suggest this after talking to Sovereign.
While they might not have known they would get a sequel, it's clear that one was planned.
Well the Catalyst does argue that it's just doing what it was meant to do, much like dinosaurs. But no, there was not a focus on the "why" of the Reapers. It was always about beating them, and ME2 should have been about "how". Personally, I was always more interested in what the Reapers were more than why they are attacking. I wanted a better answer than we go to explain what Sovereign meant by "There is a realm of existence so far beyond your own, you can not even imagine it," "I am beyond your comprehension," and "we are each a nation", etc. I wanted to get into their origins because they could not be as eternal as Sovereign claimed. But that took a DLC for me to get.
Why would the Reapers' motivation be your reason to care? The series was built on it's characters and universe. They were your reason to care.
That's not true. I don't think the Catalyst was even an idea when Mass Effect and Sovereign's dialogue was written.
Where was searching for "why" part of the plot?
Gotcha. Our difference here is on the necessity of it. I classify the argument as one of those nice-to-have RP things, like Refuse. ( If I had been prioritizing stuff for the EC I would have put this above Refuse, FWIW.) Talking down crazy AIs hasn't been a thing in ME, unlike Trek, so a lot of my Shepards wouldn't have bothered anyway. Honestly, when I first played it I was just glad that Shepard didn't engage in the empty bluster of the Sovereign conversation.
As for Reapers stealing resources, the problem is the appalling inefficiency of the process. Same thing for needing organics for reproduction. Beyond human understanding is one thing, just plain stupid is quite another.
Talking down a crazy AI hasn't been a thing, but talking down a crazy opponent has. We did it to Saren and just did it to TIM. Now, I'm not saying they should have done one right after the previous one with TIM; I'd change that scene entirely.
In full disclosure, I'd prefer the Catalyst not even exist. My argument was a way to work with what we were given.
The Sovereign conversation was just such a joke. I couldn't stop laughing at "... and machines can be broken."
Well I can see you laughing at Shepard's line but Sovereign made that scene a high point of the entire series. The Reapers were never more intimidating than at that moment.
I started at "we have no beginning" part. Reapers were from the start the weakest written part of the lore/franchise IMO.
I don't see how this line is a problem. Like I said earlier, it's clearly not true, but it makes Sovereign interesting. It made me wonder if it was bluster or if he'd been around so long he'd forgotten.
Eh, it's rare that I agree with that troll David, but in this case he is correct - the story does go out of the way to make the player intrigued by the Reaper's motivations, and that necessitates an exposition of their motivations to end the overall story arc. It would have been semi-frustrating to never learn why they were doing it all, although I honestly wouldn't have minded that very much.
You certainly have to wonder since they don't tell you, but it was not a recurring theme. I also thought it added to Sovereign's character. It's a villain cliche and/or trope that they like to explain everything to the hero. However Sovereign just sees Shepard as not able to understand nor worthy of an explanation.
It's not that Shepard's unworthy. It's that he cannot understand.
Retour en haut