3578 réponses à ce sujet

[Natureguy85]

 

This is a key place where we differ. When I read the novels for the first time (excluding that other one not written by Karpyshyn), I was shocked at how much world-building / lore / backstory etc. was in the books, and I don't treat them as secondary media.

 

I blame *some* of the trouble with Mass Effect 3 on the fact that I think BioWare assumed people would treat the books as primary media, and they obviously didn't / don't.

 

All that world building and backstory, or side story, is exactly what secondary media is for. I think one book covers Anderson's run in with Kai Leng. One covers the Cerberus attack on the Migrant fleet mentioned in ME2. That's all great on it's own but the games told me all I needed to know about those events; that they happened.  The reason I call it secondary media is that it's a different format and goes alongside but not within the video game trilogy. Novels are for "other stories in the universe of", like the EU for Star Wars. They are for expanding on interesting ideas raised but not expounded on in the main story.

 

If you're right and Bioware had that expectation, they are fools. How can you honestly expect that most fans of the video games would go read the books? I really enjoyed Mass Effect and Dragon Age Origins and didn't learn until years later that their respective books were even written.

 

 

Please, stop! You make too much sense! Gimme my headcanon back! lol jk

 

Ha, well that's the beauty of headcanon. When you acknowledge it as such, none of what I said matters. I only wrote that all out because many people who write posts similar to yours insist that it was the game as written and intended by Bioware.

[angol fear]

Yes, the child= cool ; the essence= cool ; the paradoxes= cool etc... No intention except being cool !

[Natureguy85]

Yes, the child= cool ; the essence= cool ; the paradoxes= cool etc... No intention except being cool !

 

Actually child = lame

Essence = Doesn't fit the tone or setting

 

For paradoxes it depends to what you're referring.

[rossler]

If you're right and Bioware had that expectation, they are fools. How can you honestly expect that most fans of the video games would go read the books?

 

Because they're fans. If I was passionate about something I'd want to know everything about it.

 

The books compliment the trilogy. They are all apart of the greater Mass Effect franchise. The games don't tell you the whole story.

[Sheridan31]

Yes. One of the fundamental rules of story telling is that the events of the story have to lead up to the ending. Even with a surprise twist, the path there can be seen in hindsight.

 

I'm not sure what you're asking me, so rephrase if I misunderstood. The peace between the Quarians and Geth is mostly fine. It requires Tali and Legion to both be present and the seeds were sown back in Mass Effect 2. As for the Reapers, the fundamental difference is that the Geth were written to be sympathetic, even a little too much so for my tastes. You're meant to feel sorry for them or at least understand them. The story is trying to make the case that they are people as much as any Organic, though Shepard can reject this, and thus deserve to exist. The Reapers do not earn this respect or sympathy. They are bad guys doing bad things and they need to be stopped.

 

The question was, would it be possible for shepard as the protagonist to solve his own conflict with the reaper peacefully, if it where written differently. (Or does the geth/quarian thing only works because shepard was a 3rd party).

 

e.g. if the story where different, the reaper had a good motive, and showed some remorse for what they did and for some reason become sympathic during the course of the story.... would then a peace and/or synthesis would work, at all?

 

also assumed: that there where no indoctrination (or the real ending after it), and the peace option where for real.

 

I am asking because i am interested in making a twist for peace possible in other storys / storys in general. 

[voteDC]

I do have to agree. The games should do enough to fill you in on events and characters without having to go into other forms of media. This is one of the failings of Mass Effect 3 in regard to Kai Leng. We are told that he is a deadly threat and yet he is easily beaten on each of the occasions we encounter him. Only if we dive into the other media do we find out what kind of threat he really can be.

A side note. I don't think the Dragon Age and Mass Effect spin-off media can easily be compared. The Mass Effect stuff makes effort (though it doesn't feel like it at times) to keep their story consistent with the stories that gamers have crafted in the trilogy. Dragon Age follows its own path and player choice be damned.

 

thx for your answer. So you think the choices made more sense, because both Leviathan reported synthetics raising aginst their creator and the reaper where too. You think if it were originally included it might have benefited the ending?

I think if Leviathan and the Extended Cut were in the game when it originally shipped, then the ending would have been received far less harshly than it was.

Of course there still would have been issues. Leviathan after all was set up with the assumption that people had finished the game and so doesn't mind spoiling things. I think you would have had people shouting "but you've told me what I am going to find at the end.

 

This is exactly how I feel. The gameplay is pretty great, but the story is good up until the crash landing. The meat of it, where you talk with Leviathan is where it dropped off the cliff. It is "nothing more than a retroactive attempt to prop up the existence of Hologram Kid."

 

If it supports the Catalyst's ideas, then it's a self-fulfilling prophesy. It did it, therefore it will always happen.

The meeting with the Leviathans fell short for me because I already pretty much knew what I would find.

That's the tough thing with the DLC, play it before the ending and it makes the reveal obvious rather than a "Oh yeah!" moment. Play it afterward and you know how it is going to end.

There was have the birth if you will of the Catalysts faulty logic. Synthetics will always rebel because that is what it did, it began the cycles because it assumed its actions would always be replicated.

 

The question was, would it be possible for shepard as the protagonist to solve his own conflict with the reaper peacefully, if it where written differently. (Or does the geth/quarian thing only works because shepard was a 3rd party).

 

e.g. if the story where different, the reaper had a good motive, and showed some remorse for what they did and for some reason become sympathetic during the course of the story.... would then a peace and/or synthesis would work, at all?

 

also assumed: that there where no indoctrination (or the real ending after it), and the peace option where for real.

 

I am asking because i am interested in making a twist for peace possible in other stories / stories in general. 

Peace with Shepard, maybe. Peace with the Galaxy? Not a chance.

Shepard might be persuaded to see why the reapers were doing what they were doing, and see the logic in that. With the Reapers in turn accepting that they were doing the wrong thing.

But would the galaxy as a whole be willing to forgive the Reapers slaughter of trillions because of "sorry guys, our bad."

It's why I've never liked the existing Synthesis ending. Unless there is mind control involved would people really be willing to forgive the Reapers just because they now share green glowy bits?

[angol fear]

So the non metaphysical aspect of essence and the criticism of religion are just coincidence. They put them because it was cool. The criticism of religion and the AI in the end are just coincidence. Bioware did it just because maybe the kid was cool. Bioware must be the most luckiest company, with the the most luckiest writers because there are so many coincidences. But it was only using things because it is cool. When casey hudson talked about high level, it was just because it was cool, he didn't have any idea behind that.

[KrrKs]

What 'criticism of religion' are you talking about?

[angol fear]

The one which is here since Mass Effect 1 to ME 3. Seeing that there is a underlying theme which is "religion" is the first step. The second step is to see what this theme is about.

[rossler]

The question was, would it be possible for shepard as the protagonist to solve his own conflict with the reaper peacefully, if it where written differently. (Or does the geth/quarian thing only works because shepard was a 3rd party).

 

e.g. if the story where different, the reaper had a good motive, and showed some remorse for what they did and for some reason become sympathic during the course of the story.... would then a peace and/or synthesis would work, at all?

 

also assumed: that there where no indoctrination (or the real ending after it), and the peace option where for real.

 

I am asking because i am interested in making a twist for peace possible in other storys / storys in general. 

 

Reapers don't have remorse. They're cold and calculated sociopaths.

 

I believe the peace option was already covered in the game...and it backfired.

 

It went down like this.

 

EDI: Admiral Anderson reports that the Reapers on Earth are broadcasting orders.

 

EDI: They are demanding human leaders enter their superstructures in order to "negotiate peace."

 

Shepard: Anybody aboard a Reaper is going to be indoctrinated.

 

EDI: Exactly. This is a ruse to pacify the populace during that process. Citizens who are busy waiting are not busy fighting.

[Sheridan31]

 

 

Reapers don't have remorse. They're cold and calculated sociopaths.

 

 

Peace with Shepard, maybe. Peace with the Galaxy? Not a chance.

 

Okay you two make it clear, that if you want to consider peace then with an antagonist that is very different from what the reapers are.

 

Sociopaths... Interesting analogy. Sociopaths are per definition unable to view humans as subjects, instead they consider them objects. Like a mashine would.

 

Now, i wonder, if the reapers are sociopaths, is a peace with sociopaths therefore always impossible? I also know the brain structure of buisness brokers where found to be like sociopaths in a scientific study. No compassion.

 

Do you guys think peace with them would, because of there way, always be impossible or sometimes possible? 

[Linkenski]

Yes, the child= cool ; the essence= cool ; the paradoxes= cool etc... No intention except being cool !

You're completely right. That's what Mac thought. "I think it's cool if we make the child from the beginning the Catalyst!". "If all geth die it'll be a cool choice". "Hey, Casey! I have an idea. Let's make everything contradictory and confusing so people will have lots of speculation for years to come. That'll be super cool."

[Iakus]

 

Reapers don't have remorse. They're cold and calculated sociopaths.

 

I believe the peace option was already covered in the game...and it backfired.

 

It went down like this.

 

EDI: Admiral Anderson reports that the Reapers on Earth are broadcasting orders.

 

EDI: They are demanding human leaders enter their superstructures in order to "negotiate peace."

 

Shepard: Anybody aboard a Reaper is going to be indoctrinated.

 

EDI: Exactly. This is a ruse to pacify the populace during that process. Citizens who are busy waiting are not busy fighting.

 

Interesting you cite this.

 

Now let's look at the Control ending:

 

"You will die.  You will control us but lose everything you are"

 

"Your corporeal form will be dissolved. But your thoughts and even your memories will continue.  You will no longer be organic. Your connection to your kind will be lost.  Although you will remain aware of their existence."

 

So the Shepalyst is a cold, remorseless sociopath.  Who rules the galaxy with an invincible fleet of Space Cthulhu

[Natureguy85]

Because they're fans. If I was passionate about something I'd want to know everything about it.

 

The books compliment the trilogy. They are all apart of the greater Mass Effect franchise. The games don't tell you the whole story.

 

There are people who will do that but not everyone and likely not anywhere near a majority. To think otherwise is foolish and not how media works. Do Star Wars fans need to read every EU book to be fans? You're right that they are all a part of the franchise and universe, but nothing in the games should depend on anything not in the games.

 

 

 

I do have to agree. The games should do enough to fill you in on events and characters without having to go into other forms of media. This is one of the failings of Mass Effect 3 in regard

But would the galaxy as a whole be willing to forgive the Reapers slaughter of trillions because of "sorry guys, our bad."

It's why I've never liked the existing Synthesis ending. Unless there is mind control involved would people really be willing to forgive the Reapers just because they now share green glowy bits?

 

This is an excellent point that is not often brought up.

 

 

The question was, would it be possible for shepard as the protagonist to solve his own conflict with the reaper peacefully, if it where written differently. (Or does the geth/quarian thing only works because shepard was a 3rd party).

 

e.g. if the story where different, the reaper had a good motive, and showed some remorse for what they did and for some reason become sympathic during the course of the story.... would then a peace and/or synthesis would work, at all?

 

also assumed: that there where no indoctrination (or the real ending after it), and the peace option where for real.

 

I am asking because i am interested in making a twist for peace possible in other storys / storys in general. 

 

For Synthesis to work we need several things. We need a legitimate reason for the Reapers, understanding of what being a Reaper is like, and understanding of what exactly Synthesis is.

 

Sure, having a person that belongs to one or the other group be the driver for peace can be done. There could be some inside one or both groups who don't want war, like in the Matrix. There could be one side that was wronged being reached out to by the ones who wronged them. There could be circumstances that force one of each group to work together and get past their old hatreds.

[Natureguy85]

So the non metaphysical aspect of essence and the criticism of religion are just coincidence. They put them because it was cool. The criticism of religion and the AI in the end are just coincidence. Bioware did it just because maybe the kid was cool. Bioware must be the most luckiest company, with the the most luckiest writers because there are so many coincidences. But it was only using things because it is cool. When casey hudson talked about high level, it was just because it was cool, he didn't have any idea behind that.

 

What non-metaphysical aspect of essence? I can sort of see where you'd interpret things as a criticism of religion but I don't think that was their intent.

 

Also, if they put things in there because they were cool, that isn't a coincidence.

[rossler]

Do you guys think peace with them would, because of there way, always be impossible or sometimes possible? 

 

I'm sure the previous cycles have tried that route at least once, and it always ended up in them being harvested. Even Vigil stated that there was no surrender offered by the Reapers. They kept on harvesting. 

[ImaginaryMatter]

What 'criticism of religion' are you talking about?

 

Something like this: The Lord is my Shepard; Confronting Religion in the Mass Effect Trilogy?

 

It was the only thing I could find on Google. About midway through reading it right now.

 

Although I think you can say something similar about Gears of War. That might make sense considering the inspiration ME takes from that series.

[angol fear]

What non-metaphysical aspect of essence? I can sort of see where you'd interpret things as a criticism of religion but I don't think that was their intent.

Also, if they put things in there because they were cool, that isn't a coincidence.

Non metaphysical, take a look at how we get the essence in ME 2.
If the criticism of religion was not intended then why is it here from ME1 till ME3? One time is a coincidence but when it is systematical, it is not a coincidence, it is done deliberatly.

Putting things because they are "cool" never create a meaning. The coincidence I'm talking about is that they all go in the same direction. If you put thing because they are cool you won't have that. You should try to do it : put random things together and see if they go in the same direction. One time is a coincidence but systematically means that it was done deliberatly. The "they put it because they think it is cool" is the best way to avoid analysis.

[voteDC]

They can't be bargained with. They can't be reasoned with. They don't feel pity. Or remorse. Or Fear. And they absolutely will not stop until we are dead.

I know that describes the Reapers but I swear I've heard it before.

[Natureguy85]

Non metaphysical, take a look at how we get the essence in ME 2.
If the criticism of religion was not intended then why is it here from ME1 till ME3? One time is a coincidence but when it is systematical, it is not a coincidence, it is done deliberatly.

Putting things because they are "cool" never create a meaning. The coincidence I'm talking about is that they all go in the same direction. If you put thing because they are cool you won't have that. You should try to do it : put random things together and see if they go in the same direction. One time is a coincidence but systematically means that it was done deliberatly. The "they put it because they think it is cool" is the best way to avoid analysis.

 

We got essence in ME2 because EDI says it. There is not further explanation. It's just a metaphysical concept shoved into science fiction for no reason.

 

You're right, Rule of Cool doesn't create a meaning, which is why Mass Effect 2 and 3 are so empty.

 

Ok, like I said, I can see where you interpret some things to relate to religion, but make the case that it was writer intention. Let's see that analysis.

 

 

 

 

They can't be bargained with. They can't be reasoned with. They don't feel pity. Or remorse. Or Fear. And they absolutely will not stop until we are dead.

I know that describes the Reapers but I swear I've heard it before.

 

 

[Deathsaurer]

The entire organic/synthetic conflict is based off the fear of the unknown. It happens because everyone thinks it will happen since AI's are different. AI's are so dangerous if they can't be controlled they must be destroyed. When you instill that kind of fear into your people a war is only a matter of time thus you've made a self fulfilling prophecy. It's hardly a surprise an AI will defend itself violently and that somehow turns into a justification of why your original stance was right. This is literally the history of the Geth and Quarians.

 

The Catalyst's solution to this is, in perfect machine logic, to make sure everyone is roughly the same so no one has anything to fear. It's incapable of seeing the flaws in its reasoning thus every time it tried to force the change it failed spectacularly. It also shows it's as much a slave to the self fulfilling prophecy as organics are. It became the post singularity nightmare it thinks it's preventing with an ever growing army of totally dickish killbots re-enforcing organics fears with their excessively cruel behavior that they see as merciful. To it storing someones memories is "saving" them displaying its true ignorance of organic life. All of this is the result of its hubris that rivals that of its creators.

 

It is as wrong as the organics that have convinced themselves this must happen. Shepard is the anomaly designed to prove them all wrong even if they're too suborn and arrogant to admit their mistakes.

 

 

 

So the Shepalyst is a cold, remorseless sociopath.  Who rules the galaxy with an invincible fleet of Space Cthulhu

This is shown to be objectively wrong though.

[voteDC]

I was thinking more of an event in 1984.

 

[Dantriges]

Oh please tell me more of the Great Devourer.

 

Criticism of religion, how original. Sci Fi is full with ascended beings, astronauts posing as gods, you have some of that even in the major franchises. It´s like putting elves into your fantasy setting/game.

 

Even if, so what? The writers had an opinion about a topic, which everyone has an opinion about and put it into a game? Kudos though that we had a dissenting voice and Shep could have an opinion about it.

 

The whole essence thing is one big word dropped into the cauldron followed by nothing. EDi dropped it once, there was no follow up discussion about it or how EDI actually came to that conclusion. Or did she just use it as a shorthand for aggressive analyzing of your neural patterns to extract memories and thoughts and storage of your DNA? Your being reduced to raw data? Could fit. Or did Cerberus stumble upon something when they reconstructed Shep and EDI drew on that data? Should be a big thing, this essence stuff for a man who came back from the dead. We have a storehouse of data and the project director on board. But well, Shep was dead but got better. That´s it, essence goes to sleep and wakes up at the end of game 3.

I don´t expect Bioware to provide a detailed analysis of "this is essence and it´s role," but we didn´t have any idea why EDI said it and no dialogue to talk about it, even if the only thing we can say to the question, if there is a soul/essence/life force what does it mean for us, what is the essence of a being, is "dunno."

 

But we had nothing before the big essence word and there were opportunities and nothing afterwards.

[KrrKs]

Non metaphysical, take a look at how we get the essence in ME 2.
If the criticism of religion was not intended then why is it here from ME1 till ME3?

It would be great if you could actually specify, so we can talk about it and don't have to guess what you mean.

 

Other wise I'd guess you mean the actual physical 'melted-humans-goo' that was poured into the proto-reaper in ME2, when you say 'non-metaphysical essence'.

About religion; there is plenty of it in the trilogy, but nothing that constitutes a 'criticism' as I understand the process.

[rossler]

They can't be bargained with. They can't be reasoned with. They don't feel pity. Or remorse. Or Fear. And they absolutely will not stop until we are dead.

I know that describes the Reapers but I swear I've heard it before.

 

The Terminator. Kyle Reese said it.