1395 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

And yet a non-canon game was used to showcase how they handle canon.

Makes sense....

You're muddling up two different canons there, and the EU hadn't been decanonized when TOR was released.

[9TailsFox]

I concur. This isn't a case of Bio picking a canon choice. It's worse. It's Bio grinding distinct choices into indistinguishable mush. Made somewhat tolerable in this case because the choices were dopey in the first place -- although I suppose the all-human council isn't a choice per se.

We don't have choice we have just illusion of choice. I think both sides are at fault then we say we want choices we mean Witcher 2 Iorveth vs Roche, witch is practically impossible for every choice. And Bioware same Telltale is at fault for always lie what our choices matter. I just want they stop lie it's mater look at CDPred they never advertise like our choices mater we still have save import but it's just flavour. And Bioware say it mater and retcon everything left and right. Anders can not be even made into warden and met justice he is always in DA:2 Leliana dead oh I have plot maker armour. Or conveniently kill off plot threads like oh we just take god soul for Kieran and give it to other "god" and forget it exist. maybe throw one line for flavour. I understand it's unrealistic to expect much put I sic of lies.

[Natureguy85]

 Clearly, the reapers think much much bigger.  

 

And the only Milky Way context in these conversations is that the people involved in the conversation happen to be in that galaxy. It may have been the intention of the Leviathans to limit things to their own galactic empire, but their poorly-phrased and programmed parameters went way beyond their intentions, as the cycles demonstrate.  The mandate "preserve life at any cost" certainly allows for it.  And fear of super-advanced synthetics certainly drives the Reapers to strike first  (again the entire point of the harvests)

 

But what time, and what resources are we talking about?  The Reapers could get there and back in a few centuries, far less time than a cycle of wait in in dark space.

 

Actually, it's quite clear that the Reapers are not big thinkers at all. Their goal is stupid and hasn't changed across the millions or billions of years they've been active.

 

While there is not really any way to say that they are not in Andromeda or elsewhere, and therefore could be, there is also absolutely no reason to think they are or ever would be, so a reason for not finding them is not required. If their mandate required them to go to Andromeda, it would also require them to go to every other galaxy where they would need to be just as strong and make Mass Relays for Organics to find.

 

I like your enthusiasm answering replies to answers to someone else's replies. I was replying to Gothfather, (who in turn was replying to my reply to In Exile), who said that my use of the LOTR Eagles as a plot hole wasn't actually a plot hole, (and went on to explain in detail why it wasn't one) when I was clearly using it as an example of suspension of disbelief, which was evident by what I said before and after, which had been snipped. Now I hope that is clear now.

 

In reply to your other points:

 

In a fantasy setting like LOTR, with all manner of giant creatures including spiders, not suspending your disbelief for giant eagles is not likely to occur. Unless you think putting Giant Eagles in a fantasy setting would just be too unbelievable. And (to answer another question that hasn't been asked yet). Yes, I agree, it would be a plot hole if the story never addressed why they were unrideable.

 

I am now wishing that J. R. R. Tolkien had never wrote about Eagles giant or otherwise, so that I would never have thought to use them in a thread about ME:A, as an example of suspension of disbelief .

 

I like your ability to miss the point. I replied to that post rather than the old one but you were still making the same claim in either. The existence of Giant Eagles is an issue of Suspension of Disbelief. Why they don't fly Frodo to Mt. Doom is not.

 

Well, we see Shepard's body start to hit the atmosphere, we never see them actually burning up.

 

It's possible that the kinetic shields in their armour bore the brunt of the heat, even if it did cook Shepard's body into a state where the comics note it's hard to recall what gender they once were, as well as a state described as Jacob as being "meat and tubes".

 

As for the freefall, it's also possible that like the Mako, the suits have some kind mass-effect field generator in place to allow marines to slow their descent while performing mid-air combat drops, such as like the start of ME1 when Nihlus and the Eden Prime ground team both do such a feat from the Normandy while it's still in mid-air. Alchera also has far less gravity than Earth (0.85g) which means that terminal velocity would be lower, especially if the planet has a more dense atmosphere.

 

The hardsuit itself is probably kept the body from bursting like a balloon when it hit the ground, even if the impact did shatter most of the bones in Shepard's body (as seen via the X-Rays at the start of ME2), which is part of the reason their skeletal structure needed to be reinforced as much as it did.

 

With the extreme cold on the planet as well (-22 Celsius), Shepard would have remained fairly well preserved until recovery by Cerberus.

 

We don't see Shepard burn to dust, but we do indeed see him burning up upon atmospheric reentry. Barriers don't protect against heat and even you have to acknowledge the difference between jumping out of a dropship and planetfall. Don't be silly.

 

 

I don't get how Projet Lazarus is inconsistent or in contradiction with a world with humans aging to 150 years, stasis chambers, lolwut immunology concepts and more generally biotechnological implants at every street corner.

 

The technobabble behind PL is not less believable than the rest, it's still loosely documented science magic and the fact that it's so costly in every single aspect makes it pass for a phenomenal achievement in universe not a contradiction of "established lore". The universe, any universe, has to progress technologically, and PL is for me the next natural step in a universe established to make extensive use of biotechnological implants.

 

What do those implants have to do with bringing someone back to life from death, especially when there shouldn't have been much to recover, if anything. The problem is not with the method of the resurrection as much as it is the claims about Shepard's body being in any recoverable state. That and there being no point to Shepard's death.

 

It's getting harder and harder to argue this point. Hell, ME1 isn't even consistent within itself, and relies on a lot of contrivance.

Remember that time when Benezia kept a section of her mind free from indoctrination?

 

This didn't bother me too much. I rolled my eyes, but the idea has been used before and I chalked it up to Benezia being a powerful Matriarch.

 

Of course it comes out of nowhere: it's an ad hoc project at the very begining of the game, ME1 has no business foreshadowing PL, it's only relevant in case of Shepard's death.

 

It's like saying that Mass relays came out of nowhere in ME1, well yeah.

 

No, because the Mass Relays are central to the setting. The LP has no purpose because Shepard's death has no purpose. It has no further impact down the road either.

 

Shepard is a messiah archetype. Even the name Shepard is a name/title used to describe Jesus, and the death and resurrection of Shepard is all part of that Archetype. It creates a mystique, a piece of the divine manifest in Shepard. Yes everything has technological reasons behind it but that actual method used isn't the key point. Shepard is also given 'visions,' prescience that warns us of danger & Shepard is ignored and rejected when he warns the galaxy and this too is a common religious theme.

 

I am not implying the ME was a religious title only that it took a Religious Archetype of the Messiah and used it to tell a non religious story. So the death of Shepard in ME2 actually makes a lot of sense when you are aware of the archetype they moulded Shepard on.

Yeah but that "messiah" archetype didn't show up until the second game and it was done poorly. Shepard's death served no purpose. It doesn't change him in any way.

 

The main reason I can think of for the LP is to reset the character's attributes (to make it easier for new players to enter the franchise), while still retaining the connection that ME1 players had already for the character.

 

Since when did that have to be folded into the story?

[Gothfather]

A lot of assumptions.  The Citadel controls them, but what does that mean?  For instance, The Chief of police controls his officers,  but each officer is an individual.  Control can mean absolute control, or it can mean that it sends out orders/instructions and organizes the Reapers' activities.

 

It embodies the "collective intelligence".  A collective is a collection of individuals bound together under one will.  It does not necessarily indicate that the individuals have no minds or wills of their own.  The Reapers can be perceived as religious fanatics, which is generally my view of them.  They all have one purpose in life, and slavishly work towards that end, and they are centrally controlled, just like any totalitarian centralized regime.

 

In fact, after ME1 when we destroyed one Reaper, my thinking was that we would ultimately defeat them by somehow subverting the communications networks, and forcing them into disarray, allowing us to hit them one by one, or killing off the main ship, or giving various Reapers orders to fire on other Reapers, or something along those lines.  In fact, this was sort of what some of the early ME3 Cerberus stuff hinted at, about how they were messing with Reaper signals to the husks.  Of course, by that time in ME3 we were already building the super weapon, so that better idea got tossed onto the heap.  

 

But your comment does hit on one thing:  we don't really know how much individualism (or not) the Reapers have.  Are they basically toasters carrying out a program from the central brain, or do they have some will of their own?  Unfortunately, none of this really matters in terms ME:A for a couple of reasons.  

 

First, the writers are done with the Reapers, so that's that.  Second, everything written in the trilogy was written without thought of other galaxies, which means any changes to the ME universe have retroactive consequences, forcing the writers to go back and rewrite/add information related to that.  And this is not only true of the Reapers, but of all other civilizations that they harvested over the eons.  This second one they will very likely never do, and is just an example of the bad writing endemic to the ME team.

 

One thing to consider about controlling the reapers is there is evidence for the reapers not being independent. Quite strong evidence.  That evidence is how the cycles seem to create technologies based on the biology of the current cycle. In the prothean cycle that manifested in the beacons and communication via touch. In the Leviathan cycle it is domination of minds. Reapers use this technology in the form of indoctrination because that is how Leviathan control things. I think it is no great leap of unsupported logic to view the Leviathan's creation, the catalyst using this form of control on the reapers. It is how the Leviathans control and it is how the Reapers control why would the AI built by the Leviathans and Created the reapers to use this form of control not use it itself? It wouldn't make any sense for it NOT to use mind control to control the reapers when it built them with it.

 

I am pointing out that there are internally consistent reasons within the story for there not to be any Reapers any where in ME:A, at least not as a threat.  This whole discussion about the reapers was because of some people's QQing at the series being in Andromeda. And this fanciful Idea that you have to use magic hand waving to explain why there are no reapers in Andromeda. Its just sour grape that ME3 wasn't the ending they wanted and they hoped ME:Next would really be ME4 and fixed all the bad in me3. The reapers crisis is solved and as bad as the game was in implementing the endings they did do one thing, they all end the reaper crisis. If there was one thing they did it was that.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I am pointing out that there are internally consistent reasons within the story for there not to be any Reapers any where in ME:A, at least not as a threat.

While I am a big supporter of the Intergalactic Reaper hypothesis/theory, I agree there is no reason they would show up anymore. More just along the lines of "The Reapers are gone, but their legacy remains". In this case, the Reapers have been to Andromeda in the past but are not in Andromeda in the present, the only things there being their 'gifts' for organics like a Citadel and Mass Relay network. 

[Natureguy85]

What are you talking about? How is changing locals destroying player agency? You got to make the choices in the first trilogy and they are still part of your experience. Telling a new story in a new location doesn't destroy the player agency you exercised in the past. They clearly said the 4th ME title would not be a continuation of the trilogy in anyway. That means you were never going to get to play ME4 and see the consequences of the first 3 games played out. This was state time and time again by Bioware but it wasn't what many fans wanted to hear so they mitigated or marginalised what they were told so it could still somehow mean they got ME4 but with no Shepard or maybe a Shepard cameo or If no Shepard then a Normandy crew cameos. Bioware has been rather clear on their position with ME next.

 

If I moved from one city to one on the other side of the globe I don't lose the agency of the choices I made in the past with my life. I simply go to a new location where the vast majority of my past decisions are rendered moot consequence wise because I have to abandon much that i built in my life in the previous city. There is no loss of control or agency in my life simply because I moved far away. My past isn't less impactful to me even though i am "starting fresh" in a new city and country.

 

There is nothing tying ME to any single location. The ME3 endings have forced either an abandoning of player agency or moving locations and moving locations does nothing to destroy player agency that is just BS. It doesn't negate your disappointment but you are just manufacturing things to somehow legitimize your disappointment. But there is zero need. You don't have to legitimize disappointment because it is a subjective state. It is perfectly valid to feel disappointment in ME:A being in Andromeda but you can't do anything about it and there is nothing 'wrong' with it being in Andromeda. Disappointment here doesn't indicate a failure of design especially when there are no design features to evaluate. 

 

Because the ending of ME3 is the reason we're moving to Andromeda. If the move was just to another area, like how ME is in Council Space and ME2 is mostly in the Terminus systems, I wouldn't have a problem. Also, too much is unknown about what happens after ME3. I might agree with you if they had been as detailed as they were with Dragon Age Origins and if I knew that all the major races were coming with. I see where you're coming from because the change from Ferelden to the Free Marches didn't bother me in DA2. But it was still in Thedas, so it still had Humans, Elves, Dwarves, and Qunari, as well as the Mages and Templars. So while I was in a different geographical area, I was in the same setting. I don't know yet if that will really be the case with the new game.

 

The consequences of the final choice in ME3 are also farther reaching than those in Origin. It's a bigger deal for them to just be ignored.

 

 

A more relevant question is: why shouldn't it be called Mass Effect?

The defining characteristic of Mass Effect is the phenomena for which the franchise is named. As long as that exists, what name would you consider more applicable?

 

That's one defining characteristic. Others are Asari, Salarians, Turians, Krogan, Quarians, etc and all their history and culture. If they aren't present, it's not really a Mass Effect game.

 

That's your bias talking, sir. Had ME2 and ME3 not existed, all we'd have is the contrived bullcrap within ME1.  

 

It wasn't the later installments' job to fix ME1's nonsense ... what of it they could actually fix, that is. 

 

And other than ME1 clearly not being the end of a larger story, that would be fine. Despite some silliness, ME was a decent story by itself.

 

Yet that is also the feel they were going. It was the sci-fi serial of it all with Mass Effect 2, and more or less actually hit that. Not to mention they actually developed their entire cast of characters rather well, DLC content aside. 

 

I also should point out a lot of trilogies have changes in their narrative focus, well loved ones too. They also add and drop characters all the time.

 

Take, for example, Star Wars. The addition of Yoda in the second movie, or Jabba the Hutt in the third 3 movie, were more than just minor bits. The Yoda stuff was tied to the plot, but it was done out of convenience to the plot, you needed to separate Luke from his friends to have that confrontation. Jabba is completely irrelevant to the plot, the only reason he is shown is because of Han Solo and his rescue were done on screen. 

 

Also to point out, what is the actual plot of the Star Wars trilogy? All three movies are completely different from each other in tone, style and narrative structure, much like mass effect, that the plot is technically also incoherent in the way you describe. This is also not unique either; Lord of the Rings, those Hunger Games books; and so forth. Each of them adds new elements into each book, sometimes for only one book, to serve part of that said narrative. 

 

I would also argue it's unfair to say characters from two are inconsequential in three, they are pretty important since many of them kind of hinge in who is allying with you in the end. Not to mention they close story arcs for those personal characters and help you gain assets for the final fight.

 

To each their own, I guess. I just don't see it being inconsistent at all. The charges of Mass effect 2 being superfluous tend to be overblown because yes, it's not connected to the Reapers fully like the third game or the first game, but it also doesn't have to be to move that plot along. 

 

The plot of Star Wars was to defeat the Empire and for Luke to become a Jedi. The Yoda stufff was not just to separate Luke, it was for Luke to grow as a character. The difference with Mass Effect is that Luke's training is ultimately important. We see him become competent for Return of the Jedi and he ultimately redeems Vader. There is nothing like this in Mass Effect 2. ME2's main plot has nothing to do with the series plot of stopping the Reapers.

 

Your assertion that characters from 2 are important to 3 is disproven by the fact that they can die in ME2 and have stand-ins in ME3. They are merely important for certain outcomes that are unimportant for the main goal.

 

You know what might shake things up, giving us a decoy protagonist for the prologue part of the game.

 

Maybe we have a default male or female character for that section of the game that we play through to set up the story and universe, only for them to suddenly get killed off near the end of the prologue, maybe even by the helmeted character we then discover is our actual main protagonist, once we go into the character creator screen with them.

 

A bit of a troll, I know, but it'd be a nice twist on the temporary companions we tend to get who die during those part.

 

(The decoy would have to be defaulted in appearance, because it would annoy people who spent years in CC to create a perfect look, only to have that character get killed off)

 

This is what ME2 could have been if they didn't resurrect Shepard.

 

Bioware is not interested in making a polished turd.

 

They made the Extended Cut though.

 

Wrong. They didn't canonize the choice, they just had two versions that culminated in the same result in the third game. Or do you want to tell me that Udina is councilor in ME2 if you picked Anderson in ME1?

 

To be fair, that has nothing to do with what you do in ME1. That hinges on what you tell Miranda and Jacob in the shuttle.

[Gothfather]

to gothfather( I do not want to cite your whole reply)

You are absolutely right. If there was stated: catalyst&reapers are Milky Way based and attached, the reapers are "solved"..... However I do not understand why Leviathans who live millions or years and can travel with FTL, made such local solution(organics vs synthetics) which does not solve practically anything. Even in our cycle there are long living races for whom travelling to Andromeda out of Reapers treat is no real problem. Asari Krogans they may pack and flee... why they bother incoming reapers? Even Quarians who started whole conflict in our cycle are accustom to long distance travel may just go there.. Just tell me why all races are trying to fight instead flee.

Problem is that Bioware is serving us concept of the universe that is more than fifty years old (before Ervin Hubble discovered expanding universe and billions of galaxies inside it) That "solution" may even cause worse problems. Universe is much bigger than our galaxy and FTL causes(organics vs synthetics) (organics vs reapers)  conflict to spread outside of it.

We may encounter millions of remnants of previous conflicts outside of the galaxy. . .. like super intelligent machines who won previous conflicts and all other races who were smart enough to leave little reaper problem behind.

 

Did you play the games at all?

 

ME1 - Most people believed Sovereign was a Geth ship and the Geth were defeated. Why flee the Galaxy after a victory? Few people believe Shepard that there are thousands of ships ready to attack the galaxy.

 

ME2 - Shepard is dead for the intervening years between these two games. No chance to follow up on leads, bring more evidence to bear, convince people that there is a threat. And for two years nothing no reapers all is well. Shepard resurfaces after presumed death with a fanciful story of being dead but alive now and is working for a terrorist organization. Losing most credibility with most people Shepard might have convinced people beside close friends. Why would a rational person think you know I should create a contingency plan for escaping the galaxy. We don't even have contingency plans to escape a continent today let alone the earth. Again why would it be rational for the races of the citadel have escape plans to reach Andromeda in place?

 

ME2 part 2 - Shepard blows up a relay destroying a system, an Alien system no less while being a know member/associate of an Anti Alien terrorist organisation. yeah I just don't think this would make Shepard more credible. please clue me in on how clueless I am being on this topic.

 

ME3 - oh crap they are here. too late.

 

What point in the story of the game would flight have been viewed as the rational choice? Ship need supplies how do you reach Andromeda on ships? 200 plus years of supplies fills a lot of space. Grow supplies? Sure but you'd have to have systems in place for water recycling that run at near 100% efficiency for that long and you'd have to have lots of real estate. who would build such ships? It is cheaper and easier to build ships that can use a galaxy's own systems to get supplies. There is no way to get supplies going between galaxies so its not as simple as we know it there so naturally we will go. 

 

You want to keep repeating that this notion of the game is based on a view of the universe that is over fifty years old because you think it is some great insight but it isn't. I think you are wrong about this base assumption about the story. The limitations of technology make the practical universe much smaller than the observable universe. Took us 200,000 years to reach the moon, and that has always been part of our known universe. Observing a destination in the known universe doesn't magically make it within reach. I do not think ME has a view of the universe that is a outdated as you want to believe it is.

[AlleyD]

@NatureGuy85

 

RE: Project Lazarus. I cannot think of an adequate reason for the use of that story approach in ME2 and I am not attempting to defend it.

 

For me, it was a form of compromise trying to equalize two possibly conflicting business needs for a franchise; attracting new consumers while retaining the connections that the existing user base had for the character. Like all compromises, there are inherent flaws, but it seems to have worked out: ME2 did attract new consumers to the brand, didn't appear to have lost many of its prior user base and doesn't appear to have suffered from any major critical backlash for the use of the mechanism.

 

The only real critical reaction I have been able to find comes from within the fan-base, but the numbers seem tiny in comparison to the overall sales in the franchise and well within the "write off" range of a brand/consumer relationship. Indeed, many of the more critical fans still retain a relationship with the brand; continuing to buy the products and discuss it on social media.

 

(This is a retrospective view, I cannot comment on how the move was perceived at the time as I was not into discussing the Bioware and Mass Effect brands at that time)

[Gothfather]

Because the ending of ME3 is the reason we're moving to Andromeda. If the move was just to another area, like how ME is in Council Space and ME2 is mostly in the Terminus systems, I wouldn't have a problem. Also, too much is unknown about what happens after ME3. I might agree with you if they had been as detailed as they were with Dragon Age Origins and if I knew that all the major races were coming with. I see where you're coming from because the change from Ferelden to the Free Marches didn't bother me in DA2. But it was still in Thedas, so it still had Humans, Elves, Dwarves, and Qunari, as well as the Mages and Templars. So while I was in a different geographical area, I was in the same setting. I don't know yet if that will really be the case with the new game.

 

The consequences of the final choice in ME3 are also farther reaching than those in Origin. It's a bigger deal for them to just be ignored.

 

 

 

/snip other conversations with other people.

 

There is no single story that could be told that could include all endings in Citadel space. Refusal ending requires you scrap all the known races so that ruins pretty much all stories in citadel space but lets pretend that isn't an option. You talk about not wanting them to ignore the endings but keeping the game set in citadel space FORCES them to ignore the endings. In Andromeda they can talk about the endings without having to deal with the day to day of the consequences of the endings. No story in citadel space can be told WITHOUT ignoring the endings.

 

Destroy means you have to write a story with no Quarian or Geth because the player could have sided with the Geth against the Quarians and poof killed all the Geth with the Destroy ending. So that is two races the story can't include in major ways because of a possible 'world state.'

 

Control - Do we all live in a utopia or a police state? Well this sort of limits the scale of the conflict when God Shepard can deal with any problem using the reapers. And what story works in both a police state and a Utopia? I mean how do you write a story with Control as an option?

 

Synthesis - Humans are no longer ****** sapiens they are alien. How do you write a story where we no longer have a frame of reference with any of the characters? Somehow this merging of organics and synthetics eliminates the conflict between created life and it's creators. Not sure how that works but it does so how do you write a story where magically the seeds of conflict are gone between synthetics and organics? and I can tell you the seeds of conflict are not based on one side is synthetic and one side is organic, that is a fantasy. We as organics have that in common and we will happily fight to the extinction of a one group or another. So why wont a newly created life form rebel against its' creators and seek to destroy them in the Synthesis ending? I couldn't tell you but they don't so... Space magic? How do you write any kind of story in this environment?

 

Really what can you do with these three endings? They told us MENext was NOT going to be ME4 (time and time again they told us) there were NEVER going to make a game that invalidated ME3 just so they could continue the franchise.

 

I for one hope that some races are NOT in Andromeda, I want there to be painful consequences from the aftermath of ME3. Part of what makes great story telling great is pain. If Andromeda has no sense of lose then the game will thematically fail to show the impact of the Reaper crisis. We should look back to ME1 and ME2 with a sense of nostalgia and how things were 'better' before the reapers came. One of the best ways to do that is to have one or two races never make it to Andromeda. Were they destroyed/lost in the reapers war? Were they cut off so couldn't send anyone to Andromeda? Who knows. But the one thing I don't want is to see zero loss from the reaper war.

[Sifr]

What point in the story of the game would flight have been viewed as the rational choice? Ship need supplies how do you reach Andromeda on ships? 200 plus years of supplies fills a lot of space. Grow supplies? Sure but you'd have to have systems in place for water recycling that run at near 100% efficiency for that long and you'd have to have lots of real estate. who would build such ships? It is cheaper and easier to build ships that can use a galaxy's own systems to get supplies. There is no way to get supplies going between galaxies so its not as simple as we know it there so naturally we will go.

 

You hit the nail on the head, even the Quarians who have for the last 300 years been attempting to be as self-sufficient as they can, still rely on strip-mining the various systems they travel through to try to replenish their resources, food stores or fuel reserves.

 

To get to Andromeda in any reasonable manner, the designers of the ark would probably have to put the entire crew into stasis for the trip, reduce the areas of the ship that require life-support to a minimum (bridge, stasis chambers, engine room) and basically try to have the autopilot plot a course that will conserve as much fuel and energy as possible for the trip.

[Amplitudelol]

Bioware have canonized certain choices before i.e. Udina becomes the councilor regardless. so make one of the endings canon isn't out of the question for them.

 

It always comes down to you not being able to change ****. At least in ME you could make your hated crew members die and you had the choice of trashtalk/being nice. There is nothing wrong with the story being linear and sometimes creating the illusion that you affected it (Anderson was a councillor if you wanted it in ME2 even tough it didnt matter ****).  If they let us decide the fate of the people around the protagonist and maybe this time change their way of thinking like in KotOR itd be enough. You really cant ask for more. Best example is the ME3 endings. They should have done 1 ending with varations of your choices about your crew. Now they basically have to drop the whole IP and start anew because they wanted your choice to matter just once. Id be fine with canonizing - even the totally nonsensical synthesis - but the deed is done, Andromeda is coming.

[Gothfather]

While I am a big supporter of the Intergalactic Reaper hypothesis/theory, I agree there is no reason they would show up anymore. More just along the lines of "The Reapers are gone, but their legacy remains". In this case, the Reapers have been to Andromeda in the past but are not in Andromeda in the present, the only things there being their 'gifts' for organics like a Citadel and Mass Relay network. 

Perhaps but why were the reapers in Andromeda and how did the Catalyst control them? As I already pointed out the conversation with the Catalyst it makes some pretty definitive statements.

 

"the citadel is part of me." https://youtu.be/va-eJbFO8AU?t=36s

 

"I control the reapers, they are my solution" https://youtu.be/va-eJbFO8AU?t=45s

 

"I embody the collective intelligence of ALL reapers' https://youtu.be/va-eJbFO8AU?t=2m21s

 

It CONTROLS the reapers and while I didn't think I had to address this it seems I have to (based on another post). Leviathans control via indoctrination. Leviathans Created the Catalyst. Reapers control via indoctrination. The Catalyst created the reapers. So what the technology created by the indoctrinating Leviathans, created reapers to be indoctrinating using machines but it doesn't use indoctrination itself to control reapers? I don't think that is plausible. Especially when javik talks about how technology mimics biology in the cycles. It is why Prothean beacons use touch to communicate hence the tractor beam to draw people in because that was a 'common' form of communication in the Prothean cycle.

 

So how does the Catalyst control the Reaper's in Andromeda? Indoctrination technology doesn't seem like it could work over these distances so how does the catalyst control them? Why would it care about Andromeda when it is confined to the Milky way galaxy? I am also pretty sure that Sovereign confirms the idea that the reapers hibernate between cycles and vigil only hypothesises why this might be necessary. As why do machines need to rest? But the Catalysis' conversation two games later seems to shed some light. The reapers are not independent entities but controlled by the citadel/catalyst so when it doesn't need the reapers it shuts them down. Just like it would do to any non sentient tool.

 

I mean there is a reason people are attach to the idea of the independent reaper, and automatically think of them from that perspective because for 3 games that is how they are presented and then poof at the end of the third games its with no foreshadowing its 'nope sorry I'm the brains behind the whole thing.' Could have been a great twist if there was just a hint of foreshadowing, but as written it just comes out of left field. But i think this 11th hour piece of information greatly changes exactly what the reapers are and how they would behave.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Perhaps but why were the reapers in Andromeda and how did the Catalyst control them? As I already pointed out the conversation with the Catalyst it makes some pretty definitive statements.

There are many reasons. Either their mandate "preserve life" translated as preserving life in Andromeda as well as the Milky Way, or the Catalyst calculated that there was a potential threat to the life in the Milky Way galaxy that could arise from the Andromeda galaxy. It'd be impossible to stop them if they came here since space is too vast, but if he sent the Reapers there then the threat could be eliminated before it actually materialized. 

 

It CONTROLS the reapers and while I didn't think I had to address this it seems I have to (based on another post). Leviathans control via indoctrination. Leviathans Created the Catalyst. Reapers control via indoctrination. The Catalyst created the reapers. So what the technology created by the indoctrinating Leviathans, created reapers to be indoctrinating using machines but it doesn't use indoctrination itself to control reapers? I don't think that is plausible. Especially when javik talks about how technology mimics biology in the cycles. It is why Prothean beacons use touch to communicate hence the tractor beam to draw people in because that was a 'common' form of communication in the Prothean cycle.

I know the Catalyst controls the Reapers. The Reapers are an extension of himself, being part of him and he part of them. Leviathan states that the Intelligence perfected their ability to control people in what we know as indoctrination. 

 

So how does the Catalyst control the Reaper's in Andromeda? Indoctrination technology doesn't seem like it could work over these distances so how does the catalyst control them? Why would it care about Andromeda when it is confined to the Milky way galaxy? I am also pretty sure that Sovereign confirms the idea that the reapers hibernate between cycles and vigil only hypothesises why this might be necessary. As why do machines need to rest? But the Catalysis' conversation two games later seems to shed some light. The reapers are not independent entities but controlled by the citadel/catalyst so when it doesn't need the reapers it shuts them down. Just like it would do to any non sentient tool.

Quite simple, really. There is a Citadel in Andromeda which lets the Catalyst control the Reapers while in Andromeda just like the Citadel in the Milky Way lets him control them while they are in our galaxy. The Catalyst even says as you pointed out "The Citadel is a part of me.". The key word in that is part. As in, only part of himself resides within the Citadel. If he can separate himself so only part of him exists in one place, then he can do it with others. When it comes time to harvest a galaxy, he jumps to the Citadel of that galaxy to oversee the Reapers. Plus the Catalyst also probably has a connection to each Reaper considering he is the collective intelligence of them, since that explains how he controlled them before the Citadel was built. 

 

I mean there is a reason people are attach to the idea of the independent reaper, and automatically think of them from that perspective because for 3 games that is how they are presented and then poof at the end of the third games its with no foreshadowing its 'nope sorry I'm the brains behind the whole thing.' Could have been a great twist if there was just a hint of foreshadowing, but as written it just comes out of left field. But i think this 11th hour piece of information greatly changes exactly what the reapers are and how they would behave.

Well, I think the Reapers do have individuality, but are also part of the Catalyst. He is the embodiment of all the Reapers as you pointed out. It's sort of like Legion. Legion is made up of 1,183 Geth. Each Geth is an individual, but they also form the gestalt individual we know as Legion. So while Harbinger is Harbinger, Sovereign is Sovereign, etc they all help add to the Intelligence and form the gestalt intellect we know as the Catalyst. 

[Hanako Ikezawa]

You hit the nail on the head, even the Quarians who have for the last 300 years been attempting to be as self-sufficient as they can, still rely on strip-mining the various systems they travel through to try to replenish their resources, food stores or fuel reserves.

 

To get to Andromeda in any reasonable manner, the designers of the ark would probably have to put the entire crew into stasis for the trip, reduce the areas of the ship that require life-support to a minimum (bridge, stasis chambers, engine room) and basically try to have the autopilot plot a course that will conserve as much fuel and energy as possible for the trip.

If the Geth are part of the voyage, they could be the ones that pilot the ship for however long the voyage takes while all the organics are in stasis pods. Then you could turn life support and everything that isn't needed at that time off, since the Geth don't need food, water, air, gravity, pressure, or even space since they could live in the ship itself. 

[Gothfather]

/snip other conversations

 

Yeah but that "messiah" archetype didn't show up until the second game and it was done poorly. Shepard's death served no purpose. It doesn't change him in any way.

 

 

/snip for the same reason

 

I'm not sure you can say that definitively. When I play ME1 I see the Messiah Archetype in the way Shepard is the only person with the 'divine knowledge' from the beacon. Think I am stretching equating the prothean beacon to divine knowledge? ME1 is where you learn that the Hanar view the Protheans as divine. This idea of god giving important knowledge to a prophet or messiah fits right into this archetype. As i said Shepard's name isn't a coincidence. All through ME1 Shepard is presented as the only one that can save the galaxy because of this divine knowledge and no one believes Shepard beyond a few loyal disciples.

 

I don't think you can say the Messiah archetype was just thrown into ME2 out of left field. It was pretty well foreshadowed in the first game and the game only reinforced this through the next two games. I'm not bothered by Shepard's death in Me2's prologue because I was pretty sure already that Shepard's story was already being told as a quasi messiah figure. The visions, the isolation, the disciples who believe while the rest of the world doubts all seem spot on.

 

Was it implemented poorly? I don't think so. In one of the endings Shepard even become 'divine.' The epilogue with the man and the boy all talk about 'the Shepard' as though isn't a man or woman but something more. I think all these elements point to a very deliberate and consistent intent to tell a messiah story. I can see it coming as a shock if you were not making the connections to the Messiah archetype in ME1 but clues are in the game from day one and they continue right to the end of the game.

[Sifr]

I've always liked the idea that perhaps some of the Reapers might have gone rogue or become independent over the course of their history, in the same manner that the Keepers did, where despite their conversion into a slave race, they still were able to "evolve" to end up outside Reaper control and instead only respond to the Citadel.

[Natureguy85]

@NatureGuy85

 

RE: Project Lazarus. I cannot think of an adequate reason for the use of that story approach in ME2 and I am not attempting to defend it.

 

For me, it was a form of compromise trying to equalize two possibly conflicting business needs for a franchise; attracting new consumers while retaining the connections that the existing user base had for the character. Like all compromises, there are inherent flaws, but it seems to have worked out: ME2 did attract new consumers to the brand, didn't appear to have lost many of its prior user base and doesn't appear to have suffered from any major critical backlash for the use of the mechanism.

 

The only real critical reaction I have been able to find comes from within the fan-base, but the numbers seem tiny in comparison to the overall sales in the franchise and well within the "write off" range of a brand/consumer relationship. Indeed, many of the more critical fans still retain a relationship with the brand; continuing to buy the products and discuss it on social media.

 

(This is a retrospective view, I cannot comment on how the move was perceived at the time as I was not into discussing the Bioware and Mass Effect brands at that time)

 

Killing off Shepard wasn't needed to bring new people into the game. How are the two connected in any way? 

 

ME2 was a good game, but none of that came from the main plot. Shepard's death was pointless.

 

 

I'm not sure you can say that definitively. When I play ME1 I see the Messiah Archetype in the way Shepard is the only person with the 'divine knowledge' from the beacon. Think I am stretching equating the prothean beacon to divine knowledge? ME1 is where you learn that the Hanar view the Protheans as divine. This idea of god giving important knowledge to a prophet or messiah fits right into this archetype. As i said Shepard's name isn't a coincidence. All through ME1 Shepard is presented as the only one that can save the galaxy because of this divine knowledge and no one believes Shepard beyond a few loyal disciples.

 

I don't think you can say the Messiah archetype was just thrown into ME2 out of left field. It was pretty well foreshadowed in the first game and the game only reinforced this through the next two games. I'm not bothered by Shepard's death in Me2's prologue because I was pretty sure already that Shepard's story was already being told as a quasi messiah figure. The visions, the isolation, the disciples who believe while the rest of the world doubts all seem spot on.

 

Was it implemented poorly? I don't think so. In one of the endings Shepard even become 'divine.' The epilogue with the man and the boy all talk about 'the Shepard' as though isn't a man or woman but something more. I think all these elements point to a very deliberate and consistent intent to tell a messiah story. I can see it coming as a shock if you were not making the connections to the Messiah archetype in ME1 but clues are in the game from day one and they continue right to the end of the game.

 

Prophet =/= Messiah. Prophet I can agree with. Unfortunately, that "divine knowledge" was dropped from the plot and we instead got "icon" in ME2, which wasn't shown in the plot either. I am bothered by Shepard's death because it was utterly meaningless. Shepard doesn't really care, let alone anyone else. The only thing it impacts is that he has to catch up on two years of info.

 

That Epilogue is awful and them talking about "The Shepard" was a huge slap in the face. It's terrible.

[Gothfather]

There are many reasons. Either their mandate "preserve life" translated as preserving life in Andromeda as well as the Milky Way, or the Catalyst calculated that there was a potential threat to the life in the Milky Way galaxy that could arise from the Andromeda galaxy. It'd be impossible to stop them if they came here since space is too vast, but if he sent the Reapers there then the threat could be eliminated before it actually materialized. 

 

I know the Catalyst controls the Reapers. The Reapers are an extension of himself, being part of him and he part of them. Leviathan states that the Intelligence perfected their ability to control people in what we know as indoctrination. 

 

Quite simple, really. There is a Citadel in Andromeda which lets the Catalyst control the Reapers while in Andromeda just like the Citadel in the Milky Way lets him control them while they are in our galaxy. The Catalyst even says as you pointed out "The Citadel is a part of me.". The key word in that is part. As in, only part of himself resides within the Citadel. If he can separate himself so only part of him exists in one place, then he can do it with others. When it comes time to harvest a galaxy, he jumps to the Citadel of that galaxy to oversee the Reapers. Plus the Catalyst also probably has a connection to each Reaper considering he is the collective intelligence of them, since that explains how he controlled them before the Citadel was built. 

 

Well, I think the Reapers do have individuality, but are also part of the Catalyst. He is the embodiment of all the Reapers as you pointed out. It's sort of like Legion. Legion is made up of 1,183 Geth. Each Geth is an individual, but they also form the gestalt individual we know as Legion. So while Harbinger is Harbinger, Sovereign is Sovereign, etc they all help add to the Intelligence and form the gestalt intellect we know as the Catalyst. 

 

What evidence? And don't say lack of evidence isn't evidence of lack. You are saying there could be a second citadel and it is in Andromeda. What evidence? You are saying the Catalysis can leave the citadel what evidence? You ignore all the evidence that doesn't fit your theory that the reapers are extra galactic and then manufacture theories to explain how they could be extra galactic but you do so without evidence.

 

I present evidence and then provide a plausible theory that fits within the evidence provided. You ignore evidence that limits the reapers and craft new variants to the theory to explain why a limitation might not actually be a limitation but you craft these new variant theories without evidence.

 

You have a theory that the reapers are extra galactic but for that theory to work you need a second theory as to how there is a second citadel and yet a third theory that the catalyst isn't confined to the citadel. There is a fundamental difference in our approaches here. I use evidence you don't.

 

When do you admit you are building a house of cards? When do you show ANY evidence for any claim? The more complicated a theory is the less likely it is correct. The reapers are extra galactic is a simple theory.

 

The reapers are extra galactic and The Reapers are an extension of the catalyst, being part of him and he part of them.  There are multiple citadels and the catalyst can move between them controlling the reapers in each galaxy. Is not a simple theory it is complex and what evidence is there to support this theory?

 

All you have done is crafted new theories to graft onto the original to compensate for evidence that points in the exact opposite direction. There is no evidence that the reapers are part of the Catalyst, the Catalyst is presented as the creator of the reapers as it existed before the reapers and created the reapers as tools to be its 'solution.' The hierarchy it presents, is it as above the reapers. Not as each are part of each other. It never presents itself as a being able to leave the citadel as the citadel is part of it. My leg is part of me by I really can't separate myself from my legs and remain whole. It also never presents itself as being able to go to a separate citadel in an other galaxy. That Doesn't make sense. For this to be true you have to ignore other details that nullify the entire plot of ME3.

 

You have to ignore that the crucible docking to the catalyst changes the situation for the catalyst. Now that the reapers can be destroyed the solution fails but that only works if the catalyst dies too. If the catalyst can just change location and is just part reaper why doesn't it leave the citadel? The crucible only works with the catalyst but if the catalyst can leave the citadel then docking the crucible to the citadel is pointless as all the catalyst need to do is leave.  they have now docked the crucible to a useless station. how is this a game changer that proves the "solution" is a failure to the catalyst?  When Shepard says i thought the citadel was the catalyst the catalysts say no the citadel is part of me, so being able to leave the citadel would in the context of that conversation render the crucible inert. A non functioning Crucible means no threat to the reapers and the solution remains intact and the cycles continue.The only way the crucible makes sense docking to the citadel to connect to the catalyst is if the catalyst is confined to the citadel. If it can leave then the crucible is not a threat as the citadel isn't the catalyst and no catalyst means the crucible wont fire.

 

Or do have a new evidence free theory to compensate for this piece of evidence?

[NeonFlux117]

The new game will have nothing to do the Reapers nor Shepard and pals. Nuff said.

[Gothfather]

Killing off Shepard wasn't needed to bring new people into the game. How are the two connected in any way? 

 

ME2 was a good game, but none of that came from the main plot. Shepard's death was pointless.

 

 

 

Prophet =/= Messiah. Prophet I can agree with. Unfortunately, that "divine knowledge" was dropped from the plot and we instead got "icon" in ME2, which wasn't shown in the plot either. I am bothered by Shepard's death because it was utterly meaningless. Shepard doesn't really care, let alone anyone else. The only thing it impacts is that he has to catch up on two years of info.

 

That Epilogue is awful and them talking about "The Shepard" was a huge slap in the face. It's terrible.

 

 

There are 3 key aspects in ME1 that point to the Messiah archetype in ME1 and they just keep coming in next two games. 

 

1st point hell first point in the game - You are given the name Shepard you cant change it. Shepard means nothing to the Prophet Archetype, but carries significant weight towards the Messiah archetype as one of the name Jesus is give is 'The shepherd.' Shepard and shepherd are phonetically identical. The epilogue actually uses the term 'The Shepard.'

 

2nd point - You are given 'divine knowledge.' Yes this is used in both the prophet archetype and the Messiah archetype but If all the other points point towards a Messiah archetype which is do you think this point making allusion to? Is it the prophet archetype or the Messiah?  Your comment is equivalent to me saying 'That is a cherry. It grows on a tree and it is red just like a strawberry or a cherry. it also has pit.' And you saying, 'Strawberries aren't cherries.' Well I never claimed the two were the same. i just said strawberries and cherries shared the feature of being RED.

 

3rd point - No one believes Shepard's warnings with the exception of the disciples. Gathering people from the station from all walks of life on a divinely inspired mission well doesn't that sound similar to Jesus.

 

Me2

 

4th point - Death and resurrection You don't get anymore on the nose to the Messiah archetype then this. The name of the project is a biblical reference to resurrection. It isn't exactly subtle here.

 

5th point -Continues the theme of the Disciples hell there are even 12 of them.

 

6th point -  Transformation of the holder of a divine truth to an icon - Shepard goes from the person with the divine knowledge from the prothean beacons to the Icon/the symbol of resistance against the hidden threat. A symbol that both fights against this threat but also evangelises along the way. Warning the galaxy of the threat which is solidified in ME3 when the rest of the galaxy realises Shepard was right all along.

 

7th point - The messiah figure does something seemingly bad for a greater good. With jesus it is beating he money leaders out of the temple. With Shepard it is the destruction of the alpha relay. Maybe this person isn't the messiah after all. doubt creeps in.

 

ME3

 

8th point - Arrested - The messiah character is rendered low by the authorities. Shepard and Jesus both arrested. The messiah archetype is a constant theme running through the games it is not isolated nor did it just appear in me2 out of left field.

 

9th point - ascension - Shepard can become a god in one of the endings do I have to explain how this is part of the messiah archetype?

 

10th point - Shepard sacrifices him or herself to save the galaxy. Even in the 'breath ending' Shepard's helmet is shown when cutscene talks about the losses suffered. A plaque with Shepard's name is clearly visible for a ceremony at the ships memorial for their dead. The allusion here is Shepard is being honoured in death for his or her sacrifice.

 

You might not like the messiah archetype but it was consistently told in the series and it wasn't just added in ME2. The death scene in ME2 only makes sense in the context of the Messiah archetype. The messiah Archetype is part of our culture it makes sense why may stories use it. Neo from the matrix is another messianic character in Sci fi. As an atheist have have no problem with the messianic character in fiction.

 

I'd love to know how using the term "The Shepard' was a huge slap in the face? It was a confirmation of the entire series that Shepard was a messianic figure. The games starts with this point of your name and it ends with Shepard actually being given the same title as Jesus, one of them at least.

[NeonFlux117]

Mass Effect is nothing but a Herculean power trip fantasy. In which the player assumes the role of Commader Shepard, a uber BAMF Space Marine, unstoppable Juggernaut. So unstoppable that not even death nor the 2km tall death machines that are Godlike creatures, can stop Shepard. Shepard is so awesome and special that he/she can decide the fate of the entire galaxy. Also, along the way Shepard can bang all sorts of hot aliens and human s alike. Men want to be him, and women want be under him.

Ultimate Herculean power trip fantasy.

[pdusen]

Mass Effect is nothing but a Herculean power trip fantasy. In which the player assumes the role of Commader Shepard, a uber BAMF Space Marine, unstoppable Juggernaut. So unstoppable that not even death nor the 2km tall death machines that are Godlike creatures, can stop Shepard. Shepard is so awesome and special that he/she can decide the fate of the entire galaxy. Also, along the way Shepard can bang all sorts of hot aliens and human s alike. Men want to be him, and women want be under him.

Ultimate Herculean power trip fantasy.

 

...and?

[jak11164]

to Gothfather. You previewing whole universe from our human history : "Took us 200,000 years to reach the moon, and that has always been part of our known universe" but according to ME are last race admitted to citadel.

lets recall "facts" --- lore

Game begins 214 year after  landing on the moon. And humanity is able to build starfleet.

Asari and other races were there for thousands of years. And they can build enormous star ships  that can one shot any human battlecruiser

Reper war at previous cycle took generations according to Javik. So current conflict might take couple of centuries too.

Proteans had technology to keep in stasis their ppl for 50.000 years.

Base in Archives was working couple thousands of years, keeping 12 scientists alive while killing thousands of other .

Quarians build their fleet during Geth War. Their fleet was 300 year on the move. They are good example of long distant flight(ofc they need supply from time to time but they are not hibernated).

FTL makes possible to reach Andromeda in 500 years.

 

Why they decided to stay if they could flee and save much more people? They had everything. Technology and time. You will say they were scattered... yes, but they fought  guerilla war "planet by planet sacrificing millions" 

 

When all stand on the edge of extinction why didn't they pack children in hibernators and sent them away? Even ppl in London 1940 did that? Ofc children were not hibernated.

If I was at command during reaper war I would newer do risky project like crucible (maybe as a second option). Stand and fight just to fight, is stupid option... I would pack whole genetic heritage and as much intellectual knowledge and send it away, even to Andromeda using star fleet as decoy to save it.

During leviathan solution there were thousands of cycles. And all of those cycles didn't invent right option leave galaxy empty for reapers? You do not have to fly to Andromeda . There are couple of dwarf galaxies much closer eg. Magellan Cloud and they are, as you say, behind "solution" zone which is confined to Milky Way.

You say : "Shepard resurfaces after presumed death with a fanciful story of being dead but alive now and is working for a terrorist organization. Losing most credibility with most people Shepard might have convinced people beside close friends. Why would a rational person think you know I should create a contingency plan for escaping the galaxy." but there is and always will be "worst scenario" planning, especially if there is even faint evidence of genocide. look at governments they do that. There is always plan B, C and D. Probably ME:A is effect of such planing. But we are not first and last that encountered reapers and Milky Way is not portion of the universe with strict boundaries. Conflict with the reapers and synthetics can not be confined to our galaxy only

[Feybrad]

[NeonFlux117]

...and?

 

Nothing. It simply is.