2434 réponses à ce sujet

[BloodyMares]

You didn't answer my question! The journal is : mission/codex/codex. Why is there no main quest/ side quest? Here you have to think about it and try to understand why! If you don't then it's your problem.

It wasn't deliberatly? Seriously, you eat that? The rumour about casey and mac improvising the ending, if you can believe that it means that you don't know anything about writing, which means that you also don't know what is reading, which also means that I waste my time. So end of our discussion.

That was random. I agree that it was a waste of our time because I certainly wasn't the one initiating a conversation with you.

[Quarian Master Race]

Thank you for this input. It's all I wanted. However I doubt that Citadel DLC that came out after the main game is a strong point because this DLC came out mainly for fan service reasons and I don't know if that content was their initial idea so I think it's kinda an after the fact argument. Doesn't matter though. They should've developed this overarching plot better across all three games and then everything that Catalyst says would make much more sense and would indeed sound like a revelation. Quarian-Geth war was a strong story in ME3 but still it was a side story. Like the Genophage.
I think I will drop this conversation as well because at this point it has little relevance to the topic.

My opinion is that it fits well, but it's too little too late. I think the series in general had a problem of not really following the "show, don't tell" rule of storytelling in regard to synthetics. If you follow the codex, VI's are apparently prevalent and used for just about everything. Drones and weak AI's are intergral components to all militaries for a wide variety of purposes. You get little sidestories like this one fleshing out everyday issues in people's lives in regard to synthetics
http://masseffect.wi...ic_Childrearing

Yet in the games all we ever really see are infodrones, the rouge geth, killer experiments like EDI or Overlord, and combat mechs (there actually is an ME2 sidequest chain where you have to destroy some rouge mechs and a space station VI: Jarrahe Station> Hahne-Kedar Facility).

At one point the Catalyst asks something like "why not? Synthetics are already a part of you, can you imagine living without them", yet the game universe has never really presented them that way. If I could've given an answer at that point I'd have been like like "yeah, I can, less things trying to kill me". I think the writers intended to portray MEverse's advanced organic societies as being dependent on (controlled) synthetics, but they never really fleshed the universe out all that well in that regard.

[BloodyMares]

My opinion is that it fits well, but it's too little too late. I think the series in general had a problem of not really following the "show, don't tell" rule of storytelling in regard to synthetics. If you follow the codex, VI's are apparently prevalent and used for just about everything. Drones and weak AI's are intergral components to all militaries for a wide variety of purposes. You get little sidestories like this one fleshing out everyday issues in people's lives in regard to synthetics
http://masseffect.wi...ic_Childrearing

Yet in the games all we ever really see are infodrones, the rouge geth, killer experiments like EDI or Overlord, and combat mechs (there actually is an ME2 sidequest chain where you have to destroy some rouge mechs and a space station VI: Jarrahe Station> Hahne-Kedar Facility).

At one point the Catalyst asks something like "why not? Synthetics are already a part of you, can you imagine living without them", yet the game universe has never really presented them that way. If I could've given an answer at that point I'd have been like like "yeah, I can, less things trying to kill me". I think the writers intended to portray MEverse's advanced organic societies as being dependent on (controlled) synthetics, but they never really fleshed the universe out all that well in that regard.

Yeah, you're right. It just doesn't sit right with me that the main plot (as the glowing boy presents it) of Mass Effect is explained in a bunch of optional or additional content like the codex, side missions, crew dialogues that you can skip and most notably DLC. Hell, Cerberus got more screen time than Reapers themselves and even more than this whole synthetic-organic conflict. It was there but it didn't feel like it was central to the plot at all.

P.S. love your signature.

[Angry Chocobo]

Because it kills all synthetics, including EDI and the geth. It also doesn't do anything to prevent future generations from repeating the Leviathans' mistake and creating new Reapers.

[gothpunkboy89]

As a separate point to my replay to BloddyMares I must say this obsession with the show don't tell set up is rather puzzling. Show don't tell has it's part but to claim the whole story line is terrible because they didn't parade it in front of your face seems to be more to me like a desperate grab for anything to validate complaints.

 

So simply put why the obsession with show don't tell?

[Quarian Master Race]

Because it kills all synthetics, including EDI and the geth. It also doesn't do anything to prevent future generations from repeating the Leviathans' mistake and creating new Reapers.

Well, it kind of does, because post EC there doesn't seem to be any prohibition on just building another Crucible, hooking it up to the Citadel and Relays (which are also shown to be rebuilt) and pressing the "kill all toasters with red spacemagic" button again should that come to pass. Hell, build one preemptively so you don't have to spend 3 months fighting the robots before you nuke them out of existence and try another software build.

In effect, there's no real point to Control unless Shep really wants to be Space Stalin, or for some reason really cares about EDI and the Reaper constructs inhabiting the geth's former shells enough to keep the Reapers around, because the organics can ensure their survival on their own terms without Reapers if they want

The Crucible and its functions are just a dumb, plot hole inducing device in general.  Why the Glowbrat would attempt to delay or stop its being built cycle after cycle makes no sense, as arguably any solution it provides is better than "put all the meatbags in a blender and fry the all the toasters they've built every 50,000 years".

[gothpunkboy89]

I'd rather you not compare me to a child when your own arguments are all over the place.
And it's not my problem. It was the reasoning behind my Shepard. I'll even quote Vigil: "Your survival depends on stopping them, not in understanding them".

 

Now you see my point. They didn't advance the Reaper plot (overarching plot) in ME2 and my question is "why?". Did they forget what Shepard's journey was about? I agree about the Thanix cannon but you can see the difference only if you read the codex. To clarify: codex provides additional non-essential information. I shouldn't bother myself reading the codex to understand the story. From ME2 point of view destroying the Sovereign didn't accomplish anything but made Shepard 'hero, a bloody icon".
ME2 was a waste of time because it didn't have an impact on the series. Like at all. What choices did we have in this game (main plot only)? To activate or not Legion, to see who survives the Suicide Mission and to blow up or keep the Collector base. How ME3 treated those choices: if Legion is not in the game then there is a Geth VI which is basically the same thing but less friendly. Every ME2 squad member is given a unimportant role. If Mordin dies then there's Padok Wilks, if Tali dies then there's Admiral Xen, other squad members have no impact at all. And Collector base...TIM somehow got the Reaper larva corpse so it means you kept the base intact even if you didn't. The only choices that affected ME3 were those from loyalty missions (Maelon's data, Tali's trial and Legion's heretic problem) but those are optional. Therefore: ME2 is pointless.
 

 

 

 Why do I bother? Learn to read so you don't have these questions.

 

My argument has always been the same. The thing is people have their individual reasons for not liking or not agreeing with X or Y. Even people that agree over all on certain points can differ on the specifics. I meet people on that argument they are trying to make. But please do show some proof of my arguments all over the place.

 

Understanding them is the key to stopping them. If you don't understand your opponent you don't have a chance. This is even more so obvious when that opponent already has a rather large advantage over you. Thousands of cycles have passed with every race simply trying to stop them. Hasn't worked yet. So after 1,001 time don't you think maybe trying something else might work? For the sake of novelty if nothing else.

 

It did advance the plot not as much as ME1 and 3 and there is a difference between not advancing the plot as much and out right not advancing anything. It was fairly obvious at least to me ME 3 would be the game that the Reapers finally invade. ME2 advanced rather well. It expanded the game world even larger and most importantly it gave you a taste of the level of death the Reapers could cause and what can ultimately happened to the races harvested. You can complain about it not advancing all you want it doesn't change the fact that ME2 took the vague harvest all life in the galaxy and brought it into solid view of just what is waiting for you. Your mistake seems to be thinking that ME2 only going 1/2 a mile compared to ME1 and 3 going 1 mile is the same as going 0 miles.

 

What choices did we have in ME1 main plot? Your argument is now based on game play set ups not story line. No game can have 3 games and treat every choice you get as earth shattering importance. Please do show 10 games that exist in at least a trilogy were every choice you make has massive effects in the following ones. The choices have the impact they should have in the story line. Each character has their own over all story arch if they survive or not. If Mordin survives he vows to help correct the pain and suffering he help reinforce on the Krogan. Seeing the error of his ways and of his past actions. If Padok is there he is just a doe eyed Salarian who thinks the actions of Salarians in the past were wrong. Mordin has an emotional stake in it and choosing to shoot Mordin or watching him walk to his death in the Shroud. The same applies to literally anyone else. Every time I watch Lang kill Thane it still elicits an emotional responds. One that doesn't happen if Captain Kerrahe or the Council member is killed. And when you get the option for the renegade action to turn and break Kai Lang's sword turn and stab him in the side with the omni tool blade yelling this is for Thane is one of the single greatest moments in the game. The same with Legion's death actually matters mean while VI Legion's death means nothing. Watching Grunt take on the Rachni single handedly so we could escape being dropped to his bare hand fighting. I was actually worried and relived when he managed to make it out. Mean while I watched group after group of Asari be wiped out without any emotion.

 

But to kind of drive home this point what choice in ME1 caused massive effects in ME 2 and 3? How many options did you get on that main story line?

 

 

I have read exactly what you posted. And none of it make any sense every bit along the the way organics were helped out. From the Protheans delaying the Reaper invasion to relying on past races to create the Crucible to the Catalyst and the Relays it build to be used to actually activate it and wipe them out. During no point in the trilogy does organics of that cycle actually do anything themselves except kill each other and nearly get killed by a synthetic race.

[BloodyMares]

As a separate point to my replay to BloddyMares I must say this obsession with the show don't tell set up is rather puzzling. Show don't tell has it's part but to claim the whole story line is terrible because they didn't parade it in front of your face seems to be more to me like a desperate grab for anything to validate complaints.

 

So simply put why the obsession with show don't tell?

I'm no expert but I'd guess that it's a video-game and unlike the books it relies heavily on visual content. It doesn't have to be on the nose and screaming for attention, it can be subtle, but it has to be central. Throughout the story there should be hints scattered around places you go to, dropped by core characters and so you could solve this puzzle by yourself, the Catalyst would just provide the details. ME1 did this with Sovereign and the Reapers. We saw Saren's wierd ship on Eden Prime, then the beacon burned a strange vision into our brain, then Shiala explained that indoctrination is coming from the Sovereign and gave us a clearer picture for our visions, then Liara comes along and tells us that our vision was a warning sent across the galaxy and that there is a piece missing. Then we acquire this piece on Virmire and we learn the truth: Reapers are indeed real and Sovereign is one of them. It expands our goal and gives our character a new motivation. Then with the help of Liara's mom we find the location of Mu relay and go to Ilos in search for the unknown conduit. And then the climax: Vigil tells us everything we need to know so we can stop Sovereign's plan. This is how you build a central story. Yes, sometimes ME1 was too apparent with their Reaper forshadowing but from the story perspective it was done right.
If they couldn't do that in ME3 or didn't want to repeat themselves, then, honestly, I would buy it if at least TIM knew about this conflict and tried to warn us about it. Then the aftermath would be more acceptable. It wouldn't be much better but at least the Catalyst's reasoning would make some sense. I dislike TIM and Cerberus and their random behavior but at least this simple change would give TIM's character some complexity, that he actually wants to help us and encounters with him were his gestures of a good will to give us information in exchange for cooperation (or something else that Cerberus needs) but we still turn him down because he didn't show himself as a trustworthy person. And the line "So, TIM was right after all" coming from Shepard would fit into the theme of the game and the dialogue with the Catalyst could be viewed as a revelation. It doesn't fix the endings themselves, but it fixes a narrative coherence a bit.

[gothpunkboy89]

Well, it kind of does, because post EC there doesn't seem to be any prohibition on just building another Crucible, hooking it up to the Citadel and Relays (which are also shown to be rebuilt) and pressing the "kill all toasters with red spacemagic" button again should that come to pass. Hell, build one preemptively so you don't have to spend 3 months fighting the robots before you nuke them out of existence and try another software build.

In effect, there's no real point to Control unless Shep really wants to be Space Stalin, or for some reason really cares about EDI and the Reaper constructs inhabiting the geth's former shells enough to keep the Reapers around, because the organics can ensure their survival on their own terms without Reapers if they want

The Crucible and its functions are just a dumb, plot hole inducing device in general.  Why the Glowbrat would attempt to delay or stop its being built cycle after cycle makes no sense, as arguably any solution it provides is better than "put all the meatbags in a blender and fry the all the toasters they've built every 50,000 years".

 

Well kill beam was set up to only target Reaper tech. Hence why Geth and EDI go by by with the Reapers. To make it target all synthetic life that isn't Reapers would also mean it would effect all technology not just synthetics. So basically you would be wiping out all technology in the galaxy each time you fired it. Including every power station, ever hospital and every ship in space. On top of the need to repair the relays after each firing which would strand people in areas for months if not years at a time. Rather like setting you house on fire each time you find some bugs in it.

 

Not really a plot device it was continually sabotaged and thus never build. If it is never build the AI can never realize the potential changes it can create. Best example is how penicillin came about. Mold was known about for decades but no one ever thought to grow it in a specific way to create an anti bacterial set up. Once it was discovered how ever it became fairly obvious the set up that allowed the changes and penicillin to be created helping a lot of people's lives with bacterial infections.

[gothpunkboy89]

I'm no expert but I'd guess that it's a video-game and unlike the books it relies heavily on visual content. It doesn't have to be on the nose and screaming for attention, it can be subtle, but it has to be central. Throughout the story there should be hints scattered around places you go to, dropped by core characters and so you could solve this puzzle by yourself, the Catalyst would just provide the details. ME1 did this with Sovereign and the Reapers. We saw Saren's wierd ship on Eden Prime, then the beacon burned a strange vision into our brain, then Shiala explained that indoctrination is coming from the Sovereign and gave us a clearer picture for our visions, then Liara comes along and tells us that our vision was a warning sent across the galaxy and that there is a piece missing. Then we acquire this piece on Virmire and we learn the truth: Reapers are indeed real and Sovereign is one of them. It expands our goal and gives our character a new motivation. Then with the help of Liara's mom we find the location of Mu relay and go to Ilos in search for the unknown conduit. And then the climax: Vigil tells us everything we need to know so we can stop Sovereign's plan. This is how you build a central story. Yes, sometimes ME1 was too apparent with their Reaper forshadowing but from the story perspective it was done right.
If they couldn't do that in ME3 or didn't want to repeat themselves, then, honestly, I would buy it if at least TIM knew about this conflict and tried to warn us about it. Then the aftermath would be more acceptable. It wouldn't be much better but at least the Catalyst's reasoning would make some sense. I dislike TIM and Cerberus and their random behavior but at least this simple change would give TIM's character some complexity, that he actually wants to help us and encounters with him were his gestures of a good will to give us information in exchange for cooperation (or something else that Cerberus needs) but we still turn him down because he didn't show himself as a trustworthy person. And the line "So, TIM was right after all" coming from Shepard would fit into the theme of the game and the dialogue with the Catalyst could be viewed as a revelation. It doesn't fix the endings themselves, but it fixes a narrative coherence a bit.

 

 

The point of the Codex is to fill players in on information in the world they didn't show in game. Showing is important but people are dismissing the telling part as if it is a sign of bad writing it isn't. Which is a lot like claiming just because a game is a fps it automatically has less depth then a playing card and is just another CoD/Battlefield clone. Showing and telling both have a part and the game shows and tells.

 

 

 

TIM's actions during ME 2 and 3 both make sense. I don't understand were this randomness people seem to pull out of thin air when talking about Cerberus in ME 3. Guy was always obsessed with gaining and ensuring human dominance so much so he willingly brought a chunk of a dead Reaper back to his home base. He thinking he can control Reapers is well within his realm of logic after all he did bring someone back from the dead. Spit in the eye of God once you will think you can do it a second time. Once you see the chunk of the Reaper you killed in his base any lingering questions are answered the moment you see it.

[BloodyMares]

It did advance the plot not as much as ME1 and 3 and there is a difference between not advancing the plot as much and out right not advancing anything. It was fairly obvious at least to me ME 3 would be the game that the Reapers finally invade. ME2 advanced rather well. It expanded the game world even larger and most importantly it gave you a taste of the level of death the Reapers could cause and what can ultimately happened to the races harvested. You can complain about it not advancing all you want it doesn't change the fact that ME2 took the vague harvest all life in the galaxy and brought it into solid view of just what is waiting for you. Your mistake seems to be thinking that ME2 only going 1/2 a mile compared to ME1 and 3 going 1 mile is the same as going 0 miles.

I see. Let me clarify. What you discribed is not a plot. You said it yourself. It expands the game world (and retcons some of it but we won't go there). A worldbuilding. I don't deny it. It did expand our knowledge  about each species including collectors, it did establish what the harvest actually looked like. It established a bunch of colorful and interesting characters with their personal daddy issues. But what was the plot?
We have a Premise - The Collectors attack human colones.
We have a Theme - Shepard gathers people (best of the best), solves their problems and goes on a Suicide Mission. This theme is developed very well, it adds depth to each of the character.

A Plot is what happens in a story, it's a sequence of connected events that happen to our character and impact him or the characters surrounding him. It build on the Premise and answers the "why?" question. We get a little bit of that. The revelation that all these abductions happened to build a Reaper. But why did they need to build a Reaper right now? Why is human genetic diversity is so special to Reapers? Why bother building a human Reaper if they can harvest all organic life in a year? Why didn't Sovereign use Collectors to aid his plan in ME1? This plot didn't come from ME1 and it doesn't impact the sequel. It's just there. ME3 doesn't really care that you stopped the Collectors, that you saw a harvest with your own eyes, that you know the purpose behind harvest (building more Reapers). ME3 only cares that you worked with Cerberus...
 

 

What choices did we have in ME1 main plot? Your argument is now based on game play set ups not story line.

Okay, a fair point. I didn't mean to dive into a gameplay territory, my bad. ME1 didn't really have choices that impact the overarching plot either. Back to the story itself. ME1 establishes what the Reapers are and why they are a threat. We get to see the might of just one of them. The story ends on Shepard looking for ways to stop them... In ME2 instead of searching for clues on how to stop or defeat the Reapers  we fool around with Collectors. Okay, an interesting story but it doesn't really go anywhere. The Reapers still invade and we don't have any intel that might help us. At least Liara wasn't wasting time and found the blueprints for Crucible plot device. From there ME3 story goes separately without acknowledging previous games (well, aside for Genophage and Quarian-Geth side stories). I don't blame ME2's plot for having no impact on the trilogy. I blame ME3. The same way I blame ME2 for making ME1 events pointless in stopping the Reapers. Each game is a nice self-contained story but they fail as a trilogy.

You are right that ME2 brings new interesting characters that you care about them in ME3. But they are non-essential to the plot. You can play ME3 regardless if they are present in the game. Sure you will miss out on their great personailities and you won't be as invested but they don't change the story, they just add flavour.
 

 

I have read exactly what you posted. And none of it make any sense every bit along the the way organics were helped out. From the Protheans delaying the Reaper invasion to relying on past races to create the Crucible to the Catalyst and the Relays it build to be used to actually activate it and wipe them out. During no point in the trilogy does organics of that cycle actually do anything themselves except kill each other and nearly get killed by a synthetic race.

If so then what is the whole reason for making contact with Shepard? He was dying on the floor next to Anderson. If Shepard doesn't represent this cycle's organics then why is he there? If the Catalyst tells (paraphrase): "You are the first organic that has come so far" then it has to mean something, right? Why trust Shepard to solve his problem if, as you say it, organics weren't able to achieve anything without Reapers' inderect help? And if the Crucilble changes its variables why doesn't it want to listen to Shepard? It says "we think of new solution" and doesn't let Shepard to give his input. "Yeah, we'll think of new solution but you are a puny organic so you won't participate, just pick what you like best". And Shepard acting completely passive doesn't really help.

[StarcloudSWG]

Well kill beam was set up to only target Reaper tech. 

 

That's the interpretation I like to see, based on what we see on screen during the Extended Cut.

 

However.

 

It is NOT what we originally saw. When ME 3 was released, it was strongly implied that every computer was destroyed. The Normandy crashes and there is no sign that it will ever take flight again; even in the 'best' ending you can see the Normandy actually breaking apart as the wave catches up to it. The Citadel goes dark. There's no sign of what happened to the fleets, they just vanish into FTL and are never seen again, and the post-game scene implies that the people on that planet are still stuck on that planet some unknown amount of time later. The entire feel of the original ending was a 'return to Eden' scenario, similar to the end of the Battlestar Galactica remake series, that Mac Walters and Casey Hudson deliberately invoked.

 

To say the Destroy wave was designed only to kill Reaper-based tech is a logical interpretation after the release of the Extended Cut patched a number of complete failures on Bioware's part, but again, it is only an interpretation.

[BloodyMares]

Well kill beam was set up to only target Reaper tech. Hence why Geth and EDI go by by with the Reapers. To make it target all synthetic life that isn't Reapers would also mean it would effect all technology not just synthetics. So basically you would be wiping out all technology in the galaxy each time you fired it. Including every power station, ever hospital and every ship in space. On top of the need to repair the relays after each firing which would strand people in areas for months if not years at a time. Rather like setting you house on fire each time you find some bugs in it.

 

Not really a plot device it was continually sabotaged and thus never build. If it is never build the AI can never realize the potential changes it can create. Best example is how penicillin came about. Mold was known about for decades but no one ever thought to grow it in a specific way to create an anti bacterial set up. Once it was discovered how ever it became fairly obvious the set up that allowed the changes and penicillin to be created helping a lot of people's lives with bacterial infections.

Why does it target Reaper tech though if the Crucible can pinpoint the location of every Reaper and calibrate its effect to destroy only them?
http://masseffect.wi...Assets/Crucible - Interferometric Array
 

[BloodyMares]

The point of the Codex is to fill players in on information in the world they didn't show in game. Showing is important but people are dismissing the telling part as if it is a sign of bad writing it isn't. Which is a lot like claiming just because a game is a fps it automatically has less depth then a playing card and is just another CoD/Battlefield clone. Showing and telling both have a part and the game shows and tells.

 

 

 

TIM's actions during ME 2 and 3 both make sense. I don't understand were this randomness people seem to pull out of thin air when talking about Cerberus in ME 3. Guy was always obsessed with gaining and ensuring human dominance so much so he willingly brought a chunk of a dead Reaper back to his home base. He thinking he can control Reapers is well within his realm of logic after all he did bring someone back from the dead. Spit in the eye of God once you will think you can do it a second time. Once you see the chunk of the Reaper you killed in his base any lingering questions are answered the moment you see it.

The codex was never a tool for exposition. It was there to expand the universe, to add flavour and details I will repeat non-essential to the story. I played ME1 and could understand everything without the codex and i didn't think that something was missing or didn't make sense. Everything I needed to know I learned on my main missions or on the Normandy afterwards or from the Council. The codex just improved my experience and it made me feel that this world is really massive.

As for TIM and Cerberus making sense...if you like cartoonish villians that are in the game just to spite us then okay, no argument there. Yes, TIM was consistent in that matter but his character wasn't complex or sympathetic or morally grey. He goes on about advancing humanity yet 99% of his experiments end up killing humans. He is constantly in our face and doesn't really has arguments such as how did he come to the conclusion that he can control the Reapers or how he is going to achieve that or what is he going to do with them or how he thinks they would help humanity or how he will counteract their indoctination properties or channel them. We've got nothing. The only point was made in Horizon where he came close to controlling Husks (until Reapers ruined his plan). I see that they intended for him to be just a crazy indoctrinated lunatic but it shouldn't have been like that. In ME1 we at least could see Saren's reasoning. I personally felt sorry for him. I didn't feel sorry for TIM because he didn't really open up about his plans and didn't show his resistance until the last moment of the game when I couldn't care less.

[Natureguy85]

Direct Quote:

 

Why put it's faith in a crippled moron who magically isn't crippled anymore? Who took a running start and is about to fall out of the beam. Why? Because their stupid.

 

Not even a minute into it

 

If I wanted to see this much bias towards something I would blah blah blah

 

How is that bias? He's being mocking and cynical about the cutscene sure, but what about the substance of the argument?

 

 

 

So there is no way there could be some splinter group that breaks away from the main government doing highly illegal R&D? Your almost child like view of them as nothing but as shown in game is child like.  Both Asari and Turian Governments are shown to have just as many secret black ops set ups as humans do.

 

It should not be left to us to assume given its importance to the supposed main plot.

 

 

Salarian, Turian and Asari sat back and did nothing as the Quarians created the Geth. They did nothing to assist the Quarians and did nothing to eliminate the Geth. They were complacent if nothing else. Willing to do nothing to save their own hides.  EDI is 1 being. Claiming EDI proves anything is like Trump picking one Hispanic who is an illegal immigrant and claiming all Hispanics are illegal immigrants.

 

And neither happened. For somebody who whines about bias, you sure show plenty. Where's that mod who gave me a warning for politics when I was discussing philosophy? Anyway, only one example is needed to break an "always" argument. The Catalyst says the Created will always rebel against their creators and ultimately destroy them. EDI does rebel against Cerberus specifically but not humans or organics generally. She is, in fact, friendly toward them.

 

 

Erm......not to support this guy in his convoluted and ever changing arguments, but I'm not gonna miss an oppoutunity to point out that the Council is full off hypocritical, racist morons. (starts at 1:11)

https://www.youtube....fPjJL4Y#t=1m11s

Note that 1896CE corresponds to the geth uprising. It's nice for the Council that those AIs were a little friendlier than the geth, and decided to petition for their rights through the legal process, instead of going all Skynet like the geth.

 

K, I'll go back to ignoring this circular discussion.

 

R-r-r-r-r-r-r-retcon!  Like Leviathan, this was thrown in later to bolster the ending because they didn't put enough in the main story.

 

 

 

To comment on the topic: I wanted to pick refuse when Extended Cut just came out because I thought that we could persuade the Catalyst that his logic is flawed and override it with our Charm / Intimidate charisma and tons of proof that organics can deal with their own synthetic problems and just tell this star child to pick up his toys and go away. That would be an ideal ending. Instead Shepard acts like an idiot (well, as always) and says this nonsense about dying free. What a waste.

 

Yeah, I've made the comparison to President Eden from Fallout 3. You can convince him that he's wrong and should self-destruct.

 

 

 

Quarian-geth = side story. Genophage = side story. So what was the main story?

 

The main story is the fight against the Reapers, focusing on diversity within unity and self-determination. Quarian/Geth and Genophage are major subplots, but are of equal narrative value. That's why it's weird that the ending decides that the former is now the main plot.

 

 

 

Using informations in game, is there a separation between main missions and side missions when you take a look at your missions in Mass Effect 3 ? It was supposed to be a mess here but Bioware succeed in the first two game. So why they didn't repoduce the same ? The answer isn't" because they are stupid," that's a stupid answer. There is something to understand because it was deliberatly made this way.

 

I don't think the layout of the journal is a good replacement for actual narrative structure. Unlike previous games, all missions are tied into the main goal: "Get EMS."

 

 

 

Over simplification of things.

 

ME1- Learning about the game world including about the conflict between Quarian and Geth that nearly wiped the Quarians out of existence and left the galaxy preparing for possible war with them. Then under the leadership of Saren and Sovereign the latter of which is believed to be a pure synthetic AI lead the Geth in massacring any organic that gets in their way of their goal.

 

ME2- You learn not all Geth thought like the group that attacked organics how ever they did stood by and did nothing while they attacked organics. You also get a quick learning in how Reapers are created, why they need so many bodies harvested and what ultimately happened to the Protheans. As well as fight a giant Reaper fetus.

 

ME3- Reapers finally invade you try to unite the galaxy to fight them and build the Duce Ex Machina machine. During this the conflict between organic and synthetic still shows up as the Quarians rather then channel all their efforts into facing the Reapers choose to channel all their efforts into again picking a fight with the Geth. Which might have gone well if they picked literally any other time in history. Geth panic and ally with Reapers were they go to far more extreme lengths then Sovereign did to control them. Legion agrees to help you with every action it taking being for the benefit of the Geth first and Quarians second.

 

Those descriptions aren't the plot. They are things that happened and purposes the game as a whole served. In ME1, there was a lot of world building. The story of the Geth was part world building and part characterizing the opposing force. The same is true of the Genophage as Saren was also using many Krogan.

 

In ME2, the major side stories of the Quarians v Geth and the Genophage are advanced and the stage is set for their resolution. So ME2 did accomplish something. However, Shepard's death was meaningless and the actual Reaper plot wasn't advanced. There is little value to learning the Protheans were turned into Collectors because the Reapers were already going to kill everyone. We were already committed to defeating them and that they will mutilate our corpses really doesn't add much. On top of that, the Collector's plan is unknown and our guesses cause problems.

Most importantly, we're no closer to defeating the Reapers than we were at the start.

 

In ME3, Quarian v Geth shows again, but it's just as important as the Genophage. Both are major subplots, so why only the focus on one at the end? Why expand that subplot across galactic history rather than keeping it localized?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Reaper cycle which you are attempting to break is tied heavily to the Organic Vs Synthetic conflict. The very reason they exist and everything they do is tied to this singular fact. To end the Reaper cycle is to end this conflict. The conclusion of the Geth V. Quarian conflict endings are very close to the ending options you get with the Catalyst.

 

Side with Quarians= Control ending. Uniting with the rest of the galaxy's lack of love for synthetics ensures the superior forces of organics will prevent synthetics from developing in any way the could lead to conflict.

 

Side with Geth= Destroy ending. Destory the attacking force regardless of reason behind it and rely on pure optimism that the Geth will never turn against organics.

 

Peace between them= Synthesis ending. Finding the neutral ground that neither race wants to attack the other but just wants to survive. And they have locked themselves in an endless cycle were for one to survive the other would have to die.

 

You can state that I'm stretching it with that premise and I might be but not by much. The Genophage while another important story still has it's place and what people consider fair. But it still ties into the over all story line of beating the Reapers. In a few regards continuing to punish the Krogan for the actions and possibility of actions is exactly how the Reapers function. They harvest all advance life because of what they could do not necessarily because of what they have done.

 

Both tie in rather well to the over all Reaper Conflict.

 

That's the problem though; why is the main plot so heavily attached to one subplot and not the other? You attempt to tie in the Genophage arc to the Reapers themselves is more than a stretch. It's just not there.

 

I actually like your interpretation of siding with Geth or Quarians as framing the choices. It's interesting. I viewed siding with the Quarians as destroy because of its direct parallel. For Control, they should have kept Xen's desire to re-subjugate the Geth.

[Natureguy85]

That is your problem you don't care. You attempt to reduce the entire game down to the level of a small child. Then complain when it doesn't fit your needs. Which is rather childish in an of it self.

 

ME2 does have a plot the issue is that it doesn't advance the Reaper story line forward as much as ME1 or ME3 did. I rather see it as expanding more side wise to fill in more back story and expand the universe a bit more.  I really don't understand were this sudden absolute hatred for ME2 is coming from? Seen it pop up a few times. Some sort of phase going around?  Your statement that ME 1 and 2 were a waste of time because the Reapers still showed up really only seems to drive home my statement about you trying to boil the entire game down to the level of a small child. Only children operate on that sort of logic.  ME 1 you prevent the Reapers from invading providing a reprieve from the invasion as well as providing the people of the galaxy the ability to learn from them technological wise. Hence the creation of the Thanaix Cannon which was based on Reaper tech. ME2 you prevent the capture of thousands of humans and prevent the creation of a new Reaper. To claim these actions were a waste of time is idiotic.

 

 

Yeah, everyone else is childish except you. We get it. Nobody is hating ME2. We're criticizing it's failure to advance the main plot. I liked the characters and all their missions. However, the main plot was stupid and largely pointless to the Trilogy. Killing Shepard and doing nothing with it was a colossal waste.

 

The advances in technology from ME1 weren't enough because ME3 said so. Preventing the kidnapping of thousands of humans is nice but we're out to stop trillions of everyone from being slaughtered. We have bigger fish to fry.

 

 

 

 

I'd rather you not compare me to a child when your own arguments are all over the place.
And it's not my problem. It was the reasoning behind my Shepard. I'll even quote Vigil: "Your survival depends on stopping them, not in understanding them".

 

If you look at where he is politically, you should understand. Insults are perfectly good replacements for substantive argument in his world.

 

 

You didn't answer my question! The journal is : mission/codex/codex. Why is there no main quest/ side quest? Here you have to think about it and try to understand why! If you don't then it's your problem.

It wasn't deliberatly? Seriously, you eat that? The rumour about casey and mac improvising the ending, if you can believe that it means that you don't know anything about writing, which means that you also don't know what is reading, which also means that I waste my time. So end of our discussion.

 

Your posts show you don't understand it.

 

 

As a separate point to my replay to BloddyMares I must say this obsession with the show don't tell set up is rather puzzling. Show don't tell has it's part but to claim the whole story line is terrible because they didn't parade it in front of your face seems to be more to me like a desperate grab for anything to validate complaints.

 

So simply put why the obsession with show don't tell?

 

Because having events tell the story is better than having the narrator just state things. Sure, there are times just to tell the audience something, but one should lean toward showing. That's the story.  The strange thing is that you keep complaining that everyone else needs things explained but you prefer explanation rather than demonstration where the audience has to understand what is being presented rather than being simply told.

[correctamundo]

You guys have probably gone over this a hundred times already but if we destroy the reapers just how big a threat to the rest of the galaxy will the Leviathans be?

[angol fear]

Your posts show you don't understand it.

Sure I don't understand it. But in real life, I am the one who work in writing and who teach what writing is. If you eat tvtropes and other amateurish site, and if base your knowledge on that ridiculous simplification for total ignorant. Yes you may (at best) have the level of a beginner but you think that you became an expert. You can't even explain your "show, don't tell". You can't even talk about the relation about intention-form-content without repeating the complains that has nothing to do in the discussion. You can't analyze an idea step by step (you know what Socrates did. Or anyone who try to think). You can't be taken seriously. End of our discussion.

[Natureguy85]

I'm no expert but I'd guess that it's a video-game and unlike the books it relies heavily on visual content.

 

It's not that. "Show don't tell" is for writing too. It's about having events demonstrate something rather than simply have somebody state it.

 

 

 

Understanding them is the key to stopping them. If you don't understand your opponent you don't have a chance. This is even more so obvious when that opponent already has a rather large advantage over you. Thousands of cycles have passed with every race simply trying to stop them. Hasn't worked yet. So after 1,001 time don't you think maybe trying something else might work? For the sake of novelty if nothing else.

 

Understanding how they work or what they are in order to destroy them perhaps, but not understanding their motivations. Their motivations might be interesting but our opposition is not dependent on them.

 

"They don't need a complex motivation because the story is not about them."

 

 

 

 

It did advance the plot not as much as ME1 and 3 and there is a difference between not advancing the plot as much and out right not advancing anything. It was fairly obvious at least to me ME 3 would be the game that the Reapers finally invade. ME2 advanced rather well. It expanded the game world even larger and most importantly it gave you a taste of the level of death the Reapers could cause and what can ultimately happened to the races harvested. You can complain about it not advancing all you want it doesn't change the fact that ME2 took the vague harvest all life in the galaxy and brought it into solid view of just what is waiting for you. Your mistake seems to be thinking that ME2 only going 1/2 a mile compared to ME1 and 3 going 1 mile is the same as going 0 miles.

 

That the Reapers reproduce using organic goop didn't advance the plot. It characterized the Reapers more, but that's it. The expansion of the game world isn't plot.

 

 

I have read exactly what you posted. And none of it make any sense every bit along the the way organics were helped out. From the Protheans delaying the Reaper invasion to relying on past races to create the Crucible to the Catalyst and the Relays it build to be used to actually activate it and wipe them out. During no point in the trilogy does organics of that cycle actually do anything themselves except kill each other and nearly get killed by a synthetic race.

 

They complete the Crucible though, something nobody else has done. More importantly, they unite but, unlike the Protheans, maintained their diversity. They also unite in a literal, physical sense where other cycles were split up by shutting down the Relay Network.

 

 

 

Well kill beam was set up to only target Reaper tech. Hence why Geth and EDI go by by with the Reapers. To make it target all synthetic life that isn't Reapers would also mean it would effect all technology not just synthetics. So basically you would be wiping out all technology in the galaxy each time you fired it. Including every power station, ever hospital and every ship in space. On top of the need to repair the relays after each firing which would strand people in areas for months if not years at a time. Rather like setting you house on fire each time you find some bugs in it.

 

That's one possible interpretation. I really like it thematically. I didn't see it that way. It clearly doesn't break all technology. Even though they fall back, the Victory Fleet must Shepard takes a breath so his various bits must be working. I saw it as destroying "synthetic life." This is AIs and probably VIs too.

 

 

 

The point of the Codex is to fill players in on information in the world they didn't show in game.

 

The codex adds flavor and depth to the universe. They explain details on various things. The plot is not advanced through the codex, nor should it be.

 

 

 

TIM's actions during ME 2 and 3 both make sense. I don't understand were this randomness people seem to pull out of thin air when talking about Cerberus in ME 3. Guy was always obsessed with gaining and ensuring human dominance so much so he willingly brought a chunk of a dead Reaper back to his home base. He thinking he can control Reapers is well within his realm of logic after all he did bring someone back from the dead. Spit in the eye of God once you will think you can do it a second time. Once you see the chunk of the Reaper you killed in his base any lingering questions are answered the moment you see it.

 

I was wondering how TIM got it since I had destroyed the base and had the ship with the IFF.

[Natureguy85]

You guys have probably gone over this a hundred times already but if we destroy the reapers just how big a threat to the rest of the galaxy will the Leviathans be?

 

That's unknown. Their control powers seem stronger than Indoctrination but they are likely quite limited in number.

 

 

Sure I don't understand it. But in real life, I am the one who work in writing and who teach what writing is. If you eat tvtropes and other amateurish site, and if base your knowledge on that ridiculous simplification for total ignorant. Yes you may (at best) have the level of a beginner but you think that you became an expert. You can't even explain your "show, don't tell". You can't even talk about the relation about intention-form-content without repeating the complains that has nothing to do in the discussion. You can't analyze an idea step by step (you know what Socrates did. Or anyone who try to think). You can't be taken seriously. End of our discussion.

 

Thanks for the argument from authority. I did explain "show, don't tell" in several posts. I've done all the things you claim I can't. It's not my fault these concepts "transcend your very understanding" and are "beyond your comprehension."

[correctamundo]

@natureguy: Yes, as far as we know there are only three. Even so I'm thinking of having my current Shep be vary of letting them loose on the galaxy post the reaper war.

[BloodyMares]

If you look at where he is politically, you should understand. Insults are perfectly good replacements for substantive argument in his world.

I am not american and I have neither understanding of nor interest in politics so I don't care where a person is politically (or elsewhere) because it is irrelevant. I only care that a person has the capability to have a constructive discussion without offending those who disagree and that contributes to everyone's benefit and can operate with relevant information. Nobody's perfect. I already noticed several examples of my poor arguments here or lack of objectivity there or my poor knowledge of the subject and I try to be honest about it. While talking about what we like we need to remain civil.

[Natureguy85]

@natureguy: Yes, as far as we know there are only three. Even so I'm thinking of having my current Shep be vary of letting them loose on the galaxy post the reaper war.

 

Yeah, there's certainly room for it to be an issue. And it will probably always be open for imagination/head canon. I doubt they will do anything with Leviathans since they are basically organic Reapers. Had they shown up earlier, there may have been room for it. Maybe one will stow away on the Ark.

 

 

 

I am not american and I have neither understanding of nor interest in politics so I don't care where a person is politically (or elsewhere) because it is irrelevant. I only care that a person has the capability to have a constructive discussion without offending those who disagree and that contributes to everyone's benefit and can operate with relevant information. Nobody's perfect. I already noticed several examples of my poor arguments here or lack of objectivity there or my poor knowledge of the subject and I try to be honest about it. While talking about what we like we need to remain civil.

 

Well, lets just say that everything you said is foreign to him.

[Iakus]

That's unknown. Their control powers seem stronger than Indoctrination but they are likely quite limited in number.

 

We already know their control is more limited in range, can be blocked, and is not permanent.

 

 

Thanks for the argument from authority. I did explain "show, don't tell" in several posts. I've done all the things you claim I can't. It's not my fault these concepts "transcend your very understanding" and are "beyond your comprehension."

Don't forget that whenever someone who does have "authority" including teachers and professional authors disagrees, angol dismisses their claims as well.

[gothpunkboy89]

That's the interpretation I like to see, based on what we see on screen during the Extended Cut.

 

However.

 

It is NOT what we originally saw. When ME 3 was released, it was strongly implied that every computer was destroyed. The Normandy crashes and there is no sign that it will ever take flight again; even in the 'best' ending you can see the Normandy actually breaking apart as the wave catches up to it. The Citadel goes dark. There's no sign of what happened to the fleets, they just vanish into FTL and are never seen again, and the post-game scene implies that the people on that planet are still stuck on that planet some unknown amount of time later. The entire feel of the original ending was a 'return to Eden' scenario, similar to the end of the Battlestar Galactica remake series, that Mac Walters and Casey Hudson deliberately invoked.

 

To say the Destroy wave was designed only to kill Reaper-based tech is a logical interpretation after the release of the Extended Cut patched a number of complete failures on Bioware's part, but again, it is only an interpretation.

 

 

Not really strongly implied it will never take flight or that every computer was destroyed. To start with Normandy took similar level of damage during collector base attack and still made it back. Secondly the fact the ship managed to land on it's belly without a killing everyone from the impact of falling at terminal velocity though the atmosphere of a planet. Added the entire time we see Joker piloting the ship there is no signs of sticks or peddles to control it. Meaning that it is all digital controls. Those digital controls would be fried by the wave. The engines clearly got messed up but a ship that size being sent into an uncontrollable spiral into the atmosphere of a planet and manages to land without creating a massive trail of destruction as well as landing on the belly side......yea highly unlikely to say the least.

 

Joker would have needed to have had minor control enough to make coarse corrections though his holographic interface to bring the Normandy into the atmosphere and land it were it is now. Thus the fact the Normandy isn't wrecked in a thousand smoldering pieces after impacting the planet at a few hundred miles an hour free fall.

 

I'd say the destroy wave only effecting Reaper based tech is what they were trying to get at but failed originally so expanded on it with the EC. Other wise destroy option pretty clearly has Shep out right killing a good 50% of the known galactic population out right while another 20-30% slowly die afterwards. Stopping the Reapers but over all killing a good 70-80% of the galaxy in the process.

 

Similar but not the same to the BG ending. Rather the morning dawning is representative of the bright possible future for all live now that the darkness of the Reapers has gone.