3578 réponses à ce sujet

[Coyotebay]

I haven't been on here in ages; it's fun(ny) to see the debate still raging on.  The Reapers were horrible villains.  Crush-Kill-Destroy, blah-blah-blah.  Personality of a brick.  The Catalyst was a computer and nothing else.  Someone mentioned that we can't grasp the Catalyst's existence.  I can grasp it just fine.  It's an IBM supercomputer with a creepy kid avatar.  It could win Jeopardy every time.  There is no solution because there is no problem.  The first step to asserting domination and control is to declare a problem and then present yourself as the solution.  The Nazis had a Final Solution.  There is no organic/synthetic problem.  Maybe one destroys the other, maybe they co-exist.  The universe is fluid and with infinite possibilities.  There is no one outcome.  Even in this game, there are multiple outcomes to both the main story and the sub-plots like the Quarian/Geth conflict.  The universe has never been controlled by anyone and never will.  What happens, happens.  The Reapers can control the whole galaxy, which means there are a couple of billion other galaxies out there that they don't control.  And they can be beaten, so they aren't even a lock to control this one little galaxy.  They are just overstuffed, over-hyped antagonists who have been around a long time.  There is no deep meaning to their purpose and what they do.  They're intra-galactic control freaks with a prime directive.  Their whole reason to exist in the story is so the protagonists have something epically monstrous to fight against.  That's all it is.

[correctamundo]

I haven't been on here in ages; it's fun(ny) to see the debate still raging on.  The Reapers were horrible villains.  Crush-Kill-Destroy, blah-blah-blah.  Personality of a brick.  The Catalyst was a computer and nothing else.  Someone mentioned that we can't grasp the Catalyst's existence.  I can grasp it just fine.  It's an IBM supercomputer with a creepy kid avatar.  It could win Jeopardy every time.  There is no solution because there is no problem.  The first step to asserting domination and control is to declare a problem and then present yourself as the solution.  The Nazis had a Final Solution.  There is no organic/synthetic problem.  Maybe one destroys the other, maybe they co-exist.  The universe is fluid and with infinite possibilities.  There is no one outcome.  Even in this game, there are multiple outcomes to both the main story and the sub-plots like the Quarian/Geth conflict.  The universe has never been controlled by anyone and never will.  What happens, happens.  The Reapers can control the whole galaxy, which means there are a couple of billion other galaxies out there that they don't control.  And they can be beaten, so they aren't even a lock to control this one little galaxy.  They are just overstuffed, over-hyped antagonists who have been around a long time.  There is no deep meaning to their purpose and what they do.  They're intra-galactic control freaks with a prime directive.  Their whole reason to exist in the story is so the protagonists have something epically monstrous to fight against.  That's all it is.

 

So the "problem" isn't the ending but the beginning then?

[AlanC9]

That's true based on how everything was set up, with the galaxy having no plan, making seemingly only one advancement from Sovereign, and being forced to rely on a giant plot device that was conveniently found by another character between games. However, Refuse fits best with the themes of the game. Taking only conversation into account, Refuse is the proper response to the Catalyst's BS.

Meaning that if Shepard forgets everything he knows about the situation, Refuse makes sense? OK, but that's a weird standard.

[Natureguy85]

blah blah blah everything you say is extreme because I say so blah blah blah

 

Ok then.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes they did need a backstory and motivation behind why they instigate the harvest. Other wise they are just doing it for the lolz and that isn't interesting in the slightest. Again you post a video of someone agreeing with you as if that some how improves your point. Do I need to post my Tim Minchin song again? Or maybe I can post a RvB episode for all the help it would do.

 

Not telling us their motivation doesn't mean they don't have one. The Reapers, like any Eldrich or Lovecraftian monstrosity, gain a lot from their mystery and unknown nature. So while you can argue they needed to give us something, it didn't need to be complex or deep.

Could you link something relevant? The videos I point to discuss the point I'm making.

 

 

 

 

Catalyst philosophizing at is is the best part because it turns the Reapers from a 2d flat stale seen it a million time enemy into something a slightly bit more unique. Because seriously the basic plot of bad guy shows up and does things for bad guy reasons pushing the good guys back till the protagonist shows up and protagonists his/her way across the game till some plot related happening happens and the bad guy who is doing bad guy things for bad guy reasons is defeated and everyone lives happily ever after is extremely played out. Catalyst philosophizing at you and the over all Reaper back story turns them from a flat, stale and over used 2D antagonist to at least a 2.5D antagonist that has some measure of uniqueness to it.

 

That's fine but the very end is way too late for that. And the change is only part of the problem. The other part is just how stupid it is. And I never said anything about everyone living happily ever after. Also there's something to be said for "I didn't come all this way and fight through all that crap to be talked at by the enemy."

Looking at the first and last sentences of your paragraph, is repeating yourself better than finding someone else who agrees with you?

 

 

Seriously ever heard people talk about any Marvel movie? With the exception of Loki never hear anyone talking about how good the villain is. Because they are all the same bland, boring, copy paste one off bad guys over and over again. And you know why Loki is loved by many and is really the only good Marvel villain in all of their movies? Because they added a bit of depth and character to him. That is why you can find a ton of cosplay of Loki but not a lot of Ivan Vanko the villain of IM 2.

 

Dr. Octopus was good. Part of the problem with these superhero movies is that they are using established characters. That really limits the freedom the creators have to play with the character. For Loki, it depends on which movie. He did get some depth in Thor, but in The Avengers he was just "a bad guy doing bad guy things." Loki benefits from being Thor's brother, immediately establishing a close, personal relationship. He also benefits from excellent performances by Tom Hiddleston.

The other thing is that super villains are often more remembered for their abilities than their character, where people care about both with the hero. The Iron Man movies are actually more about Tony Stark than they are about Iron Man. They are about Stark's personal struggles and growth as a person. The same is true for Thor, Spiderman, and others. So Vanko didn't need much characterization because the story wasn't about him. Stark thinks he's dead for most of the movie.

 

Some villains benefit from more backstory and information and some don't. I again point to Darth Vader as one who didn't have a detailed background and is one of the most, if not the most beloved villain ever.

 

 

 

 

 

I've seen the Star Wars movies multiple times and never stated that he went to the dark side just for power.

 

Yes it is. Power is why Vader tells the Imperial Officer the Death Star is insignificant comparted to the Force. Power is why Vader tells Luke to join him. Power is what motivates the Emperor too.

 

 

 

 

I've seen the Star Wars movies multiple times and never stated that he went to the dark side just for power. He actually has some depth to him more then you give credit for. Attempting to recruit his son rather then kill him is far more then just for power. He could have done that with any force sensitive person. And as soon as it looks like the Emperor is going to kill Luke he turns on him and kills the Emperor. There are many different reasons for people to love Vader. The being 8 foot tall dressed in black isn't the key and only reason how ever. Unless you have some sort of proof of this claim that the majority like him just because he is a bad guy dressed in black with a mask? Because the prequels did at least one thing right in terms of Vader. Gives more reasoning why he was so dead set on converting Luke and why he turned on the Emperor so quickly when Luke was in danger.

 

First off, you argue with me that he didn't do one thing just because of power and you then give a reason for why he didn't do something else just for power. Try and keep things straight. Vader couldn't overthrow the Emperor with just anyone. The Emperor is incredibly powerful, far more than Vader (one reason why Palpatine telling Yoda that Vader will become more powerful than either of them was stupid.) Vader knew his son would be a particularly powerful force user, as did the Emperor. That Vader also actually cared about Luke is part of the story! Vader doesn't act "as soon as it looks like the Emperor is going to kill Luke" or "so quickly." He stood at the Emperor's side and watched. He looked back and forth at the two when Luke was screaming for help. That Vader chose to save Luke and turn on the Emperor was a decision made right in that moment. That is the moment of his redemption and the culmination of both his and Luke's arc. That is where Vader gets his depth.

 

It's bad enough that you don't understand Mass Effect, but your lack of understanding of Star Wars makes me want to puke. Mass Effect had potential. That part of Star Wars was amazing.

 

Where did I claim that most people only like him because of how he looks? I don't recall and didn't mean to, though people like that too.

 

 

 

And a few comics seem to be filling him out rather well without hurting who he is http://www.dorkly.co...th-vader-comics

 

Some of those comics are good and some are bad. The first one of Vader using the storm troopers as a shield is dumb. Vader can do this:

 

And it's far more interesting and impressive.

I do like the one of Vader finding out Luke is his son and confronting the Emperor, only to back down. See that fills in a gap between the two movies. It tells us how Vader knows about Luke. And hey, it's the first reference to the prequels that doesn't suck. But the one of Luke confronting Vader is extremely stupid. The "I've killed so many" line is corny. Vader knew exactly who Luke was.

The others are fine but I don't care for the one of Vader surrounded. I like that we were told he hunted down Jedi but we only saw him kill 3 people. He doesn't cut down swathes of enemies. The Force is about far more that physical combat. This is why Yoda and the Emperor don't originally have lightsabers and why them fighting with lightsabers in the prequels really isn't a good thing. The one of Vader taking down the Y-Wing is pretty awesome though.

 

 

The irony is that none of those comics help your case. Those were written because people wanted more Darth Vader because they already thought he was awesome. Nobody needed any of that for the character to work. It was extra because people loved the character.

[Natureguy85]

Meaning that if Shepard forgets everything he knows about the situation, Refuse makes sense? OK, but that's a weird standard.

It only makes sense if you want to play the idealist that is destroy the collector base Shepard and stick to those same principles. That the fight itself is more important than the result. However, I said it is most consistent with the themes of the series. That's a different issue from how much it makes sense for Shepard to choose it.

[iM3GTR]

Their motives are simple, is the point. "Kill organics. Make goo. Create Reaper from goo." Other than spouting a lot of "hurr durr you'll never understand us" dialogue at you, explain how the Reapers display sentience.

Is this a trick question where I'd answer and someone would jump out at me and say "Ha! You just described sapience, not sentience, you fool!"?

Anyway, I was really hoping for Mass Effect 2 to give us some idea about that but they instead made the boss of all reapers show up and say something even more goofy than "you are beneath me! Mwahaha!" by making him say "my attacks will tear you apart" instead.

[BloodyMares]

Star Wars stuff

 

Great, now it will go completely off-topic. Don't pay attention to his analogies, just ignore them completely. It is the only way to stay on topic and keep the track of discussion.

[AlanC9]

It only makes sense if you want to play the idealist that is destroy the collector base Shepard and stick to those same principles. That the fight itself is more important than the result. However, I said it is most consistent with the themes of the series. That's a different issue from how much it makes sense for Shepard to choose it.

We must have seen different themes, I think. What themes are you positing?

I mean, I can see a way in which Refuse fits, in the sense that Shepard turns out to have been as stupid and blind as all the other leaders in the universe, but I don't think that's what you were going for.

[Prince Enigmatic]

Great, now it will go completely off-topic. Don't pay attention to his analogies, just ignore them completely. It is the only way to stay on topic and keep the track of discussion.

 

74 pages in, I'm guessing things have gone off-topic before on here huh?

 

And by the by, I am in firm agreement that, thematically, destroy is the appropriate choice for the ending. 

 

Still doesn't ever change me from picking synthesis every time. 

[sveners]

We must have seen different themes, I think. What themes are you positing?

I mean, I can see a way in which Refuse fits, in the sense that Shepard turns out to have been as stupid and blind as all the other leaders in the universe, but I don't think that's what you were going for.

Refuse also fits if you simply don't trust the Catalyst.

If you don't trust it, why trust any of the solutions it offers? Or even that they do what it claims?

[AlanC9]

Refuse also fits if you simply don't trust the Catalyst.
If you don't trust it, why trust any of the solutions it offers? Or even that they do what it claims?

Yeah, that works. It's actually pretty good if you're going for a tragedy -- Shepard is so opposed to the Reapers and all their works that she doesn't seize the victory that's right there in front of her.

But that's just another way of describing Shepard being blind.

[sveners]

Yeah, that works. It's actually pretty good if you're going for a tragedy -- Shepard is so opposed to the Reapers and all their works that she doesn't seize the victory that's right there in front of her.

But that's just another way of describing Shepard being blind.

Perhaps. Who knows with retardShep during that last encounter.

Mistrusting the entity that has recycled advanced civilizations for aeons isn't really that strange though. Which in turn would lead to doubts about its solutions.

While we- the players - know that the Crucible works exactly like it says it will. Shepard, in my opinion, would have to be naive to believe the same, from the idiocy of the last conversation.

[Iakus]

Yeah, that works. It's actually pretty good if you're going for a tragedy  

Like there's anything else to aspire for.

[correctamundo]

Perhaps. Who knows with retardShep during that last encounter.

Mistrusting the entity that has recycled advanced civilizations for aeons isn't really that strange though. Which in turn would lead to doubts about its solutions.

While we- the players - know that the Crucible works exactly like it says it will. Shepard, in my opinion, would have to be naive to believe the same, from the idiocy of the last conversation.

 

Yup, it's never to late to give up and commit suicide - or not.

[sveners]

Yup, it's never to late to give up and commit suicide - or not.

Well, the refuse speech doesn't really indicate giving up, or a desire to commit suicide.

Choosing one of the others do give off that vibe though.

[BloodyMares]

74 pages in, I'm guessing things have gone off-topic before on here huh?

Exactly. Although the main reason being is that folks start to argue with gothpunkboy over some minor and not-so-related to the game stuff.

[correctamundo]

Well, the refuse speech doesn't really indicate giving up, or a desire to commit suicide.
Choosing one of the others do give off that vibe though.

Got to do the refusal some time in the future :-S

[voteDC]

I haven't been on here in ages; it's fun(ny) to see the debate still raging on.  The Reapers were horrible villains.  Crush-Kill-Destroy, blah-blah-blah.  Personality of a brick.  The Catalyst was a computer and nothing else.  Someone mentioned that we can't grasp the Catalyst's existence.  I can grasp it just fine.  It's an IBM supercomputer with a creepy kid avatar. 

I think that as the problem. The Reapers didn't need to be anything other than this brick coming to hit us because that wasn't why we cared about stopping them them.

We cared because of Tali, or Wrex, or Kaidan, or Ashley etc, you get the point. It was the characters of the Mass Effect universe we wanted protected and saved with the ending, not the the Reapers stopped and destroyed. And those two things are really quite different.

Whatever people think about the ideas in the shipped endings, they forgot the very reason that people wanted the Reapers gone in the first place. The ideas were good, they'd just forgotten why people wanted to get there in the first place.

[gothpunkboy89]

The problem with assigning motives to bad guys, especially monstrous, civilization-destroying bad guys, is that it creates more questions than it answers. I'm fine with wondering why the Reapers do the reaping and with Sovereign being the vanguard of our destruction. I'm not fine with wondering how in the world the Intelligence came to the conclusion that destroying organics and preserving them in Reaper form is a better solution. I'm not okay with wondering why I can't tell the Catalyst it's wrong. I'm not okay with wanting to explain to the Catalyst that turning organics into goo isn't "preservation."
 

The Catalyst is no philosopher. (And something can't be "slightly a bit more unique." Things are unique or they're not. It's like saying, "kind of pregnant.") The Catalyst is a program. It spouts the product of its code at you in the language you understand. It introduces a new problem in the last five minutes of the game. A problem that you just solved like, three hours earlier. It doesn't have a solution. It has looping code that it can't get out of.
 

Are you saying that the Reapers are good villains?
 

The prequels were terrible and unnecessary. Vader didn't need to be explained. The Emperor didn't need to be explained. Vader turned on the Emperor because Luke was his son. If you didn't get this from just watching Return of the Jedi, then I don't know what to do with you. He didn't need additional motivation.

 

But you do say he is wrong telling it without free will we might as well be machines programed to do what we are told. You say your bit, the Catalyst says it's bit and then you make a choice. That is exactly how any choice in this game plays out. Be it major choices like who do you let die on Virmire or do you save or destroy the Collector base. Heck even just the simple dialogue wheel operates the exact same. The statement that why they do it is beyond our comprehension appears to be true. Because you can't seem to comprehend it at all. Not that you have tried.

 

The word philosophizing was used by someone else not me. Though there is a bit of philosophy going on in the discussion. As with many things the basic plot idea has been used many many different times. Seriously the basic plot of the game has more then a few similarities between the Lord of the Rings book series, Halo series, Resistance series and many more I'm sure I don't personally know. The differences that make each slightly unique among each other is the subtle differences in how they handle it. Lord of the Ring it is mutated elves and a ring, Halo it is the flood parasite and the halo rings left over from the Forerunners who build them specifically to stop the flood at the cost of their own existence and Resistance is it the Chimera virus and a lack of understanding of surge protection on the towers which control the weather.

 

Yea they are rather good villains. Sovereign sets everything up able to lead an attack on the Citadel that leaves it crippled and almost allowing it to achieve it's goal stopped only by plot reasons that make no sense at all when you think about it. Which is always a sign of a good villain when the creators have to pull that move to defeat them. ME 2 it is then shown even without a Reaper present in the galaxy they can still exert their influence though the Collectors. Were they quite literally hunted down and killed Shepard though their proxy. When they finally show up every threat about them is for filled in spades as they simply steam roll the defenses of every race in the galaxy. All they could do is slow them down but never stop them. On top of all of this they aren't doing it just for the lols or just to be evil for evil's sake. Their actions are for the greater good of the galaxy. They have been around for hundreds of millions of years and are taking the steps they see as the only way to preserve all organic life in the galaxy from their own self created destruction.  They have actual reasoning besides just being evil, are a massive threat as they can't be stopped and best of all they are doing to them what is the right thing to do.  So yea good villains.

 

Prequeal's problem is trying to condense a multi year story down to three 2 hour movies isn't feasible so things tend not to make sense. The Clone Wars TV series goes a long way to improve the over all narrative between Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith. Since it was spread out so far and not limited to 2 hours it allows it to detail Anakin slow slide to the darkside as the war wages on and on and he is altered due to the constant fighting and death around him. As he tries to gain more and more power to protect the people he cares about. Which leaves him open to joining the Emperor in episode 3 a lot more sense. And why after being told he killed his own wife and children in a fit of rage why he is such a stone cold Sith Lord that has no hesitation to kill anyone in his way.  The thought he was just that way is boring the idea he was a good guy who though the events of his life transformed him into what he became is much scarier because that means anyone could fall down that same path. Mean while people who only care about power and will do what ever they want to get it will always exist as a very small subset of humanity. They aren't scary because they are part of the plan.

 

 

And four years after the release of ME3 everyone who thought the ending was terrible has changed their minds. Yes, this was totally the best example.

And those people still think the game is going to die and are still wrong. So yea perfect example actually.

[gothpunkboy89]

Ok then.

 

Not telling us their motivation doesn't mean they don't have one. The Reapers, like any Eldrich or Lovecraftian monstrosity, gain a lot from their mystery and unknown nature. So while you can argue they needed to give us something, it didn't need to be complex or deep.

Could you link something relevant? The videos I point to discuss the point I'm making.

 

That's fine but the very end is way too late for that. And the change is only part of the problem. The other part is just how stupid it is. And I never said anything about everyone living happily ever after. Also there's something to be said for "I didn't come all this way and fight through all that crap to be talked at by the enemy."

Looking at the first and last sentences of your paragraph, is repeating yourself better than finding someone else who agrees with you?

 

 

 

Dr. Octopus was good. Part of the problem with these superhero movies is that they are using established characters. That really limits the freedom the creators have to play with the character. For Loki, it depends on which movie. He did get some depth in Thor, but in The Avengers he was just "a bad guy doing bad guy things." Loki benefits from being Thor's brother, immediately establishing a close, personal relationship. He also benefits from excellent performances by Tom Hiddleston.

The other thing is that super villains are often more remembered for their abilities than their character, where people care about both with the hero. The Iron Man movies are actually more about Tony Stark than they are about Iron Man. They are about Stark's personal struggles and growth as a person. The same is true for Thor, Spiderman, and others. So Vanko didn't need much characterization because the story wasn't about him. Stark thinks he's dead for most of the movie.

 

Some villains benefit from more backstory and information and some don't. I again point to Darth Vader as one who didn't have a detailed background and is one of the most, if not the most beloved villain ever.

 

Yes it is. Power is why Vader tells the Imperial Officer the Death Star is insignificant comparted to the Force. Power is why Vader tells Luke to join him. Power is what motivates the Emperor too.

 

First off, you argue with me that he didn't do one thing just because of power and you then give a reason for why he didn't do something else just for power. Try and keep things straight. Vader couldn't overthrow the Emperor with just anyone. The Emperor is incredibly powerful, far more than Vader (one reason why Palpatine telling Yoda that Vader will become more powerful than either of them was stupid.) Vader knew his son would be a particularly powerful force user, as did the Emperor. That Vader also actually cared about Luke is part of the story! Vader doesn't act "as soon as it looks like the Emperor is going to kill Luke" or "so quickly." He stood at the Emperor's side and watched. He looked back and forth at the two when Luke was screaming for help. That Vader chose to save Luke and turn on the Emperor was a decision made right in that moment. That is the moment of his redemption and the culmination of both his and Luke's arc. That is where Vader gets his depth.

 

It's bad enough that you don't understand Mass Effect, but your lack of understanding of Star Wars makes me want to puke. Mass Effect had potential. That part of Star Wars was amazing.

 

Where did I claim that most people only like him because of how he looks? I don't recall and didn't mean to, though people like that too.

 

Some of those comics are good and some are bad. The first one of Vader using the storm troopers as a shield is dumb. Vader can do this:

 

And it's far more interesting and impressive.

I do like the one of Vader finding out Luke is his son and confronting the Emperor, only to back down. See that fills in a gap between the two movies. It tells us how Vader knows about Luke. And hey, it's the first reference to the prequels that doesn't suck. But the one of Luke confronting Vader is extremely stupid. The "I've killed so many" line is corny. Vader knew exactly who Luke was.

The others are fine but I don't care for the one of Vader surrounded. I like that we were told he hunted down Jedi but we only saw him kill 3 people. He doesn't cut down swathes of enemies. The Force is about far more that physical combat. This is why Yoda and the Emperor don't originally have lightsabers and why them fighting with lightsabers in the prequels really isn't a good thing. The one of Vader taking down the Y-Wing is pretty awesome though.

 

 

The irony is that none of those comics help your case. Those were written because people wanted more Darth Vader because they already thought he was awesome. Nobody needed any of that for the character to work. It was extra because people loved the character.

 

You show your extremism yet again.

 

These aren't Eldrich or Lovecraft monstrosity thought. You can see were they might draw inspirations from them but being like and being isn't the same thing. Ask anyone who has had a brush with poison Ivy because it is like a non inch inducing plant. As well as the fact that taking existing ideas and giving them new twists to them rather then replay the exact same set up is how creativity exists and continues to exist. Other wise everything would just be a repeat of what we have already seen 1,000,001 times rather then the current 1,000,000 we currently have were everything is a remake. Maybe you hate new things and want to see the same plot regurgitated a thousand times over and over again but I applaud attempts at taking established set ups and attempting to alter them into their own unique interpretation of it. It might not make it brand new but it makes it at least slightly different.

 

For all the yapping you do about show don't tell and other statements you ran across on a wiki page and now feel smart parroting them without understanding them is the basis of all created indevers regardless of what media you are working with is to make it your own even if the same basic idea has existed since the stone age. You give it a twist that makes it your own to make it stand out from a crowd. Just because Lovecraft did something one way doesn't mean everyone after has to copy it down to the last detail.

 

Still not proving your point on Vader or supplying the proof I asked for.

[rossler]

I think that as the problem. The Reapers didn't need to be anything other than this brick coming to hit us because that wasn't why we cared about stopping them them.

We cared because of Tali, or Wrex, or Kaidan, or Ashley etc, you get the point. It was the characters of the Mass Effect universe we wanted protected and saved with the ending, not the the Reapers stopped and destroyed. And those two things are really quite different.

Whatever people think about the ideas in the shipped endings, they forgot the very reason that people wanted the Reapers gone in the first place. The ideas were good, they'd just forgotten why people wanted to get there in the first place.

 

I wasn't big on the characters. What drew me to Mass Effect was the Reaper story, and destroying them in the end. 

[Natureguy85]

[Pretentious ad hominem speech entirely lacking in substance.]

 

It's no surprise that you'd hide behind some supposed defense of creativity rather than add anything of substance. You're a joke.

 

You're right that the Reapers don't share every aspect of Eldrich or Lovecraftian monsters, but like them, the Reapers benefit from their "otherness."

 

 

I wasn't big on the characters. What drew me to Mass Effect was the Reaper story, and destroying them in the end. 

 

Sovereign was indeed awesome. Characters did matter in ME1 but it also had a good plot to carry it. The shift to characters over plot happened in ME2. So you must have hated ME2 since it had almost no Reaper story and was entirely dependent on its characters. What did you think of ME3 and its elevation of Cerberus over the Reapers?

[Mouser]

No, I didn't read the previous 74 (ish) pages.

 

The Xenosaga Trilogy handled the same themes, only stayed consistent and delivered a solid ending (though they planned for more chapters).

 

 

The problem with Mass Effect's ending came in the third game when they started to screw with things like curing the genophage and reconciling the Quarian and Geth. Hope and Triumph are themes completely out of place in this story.

 

The ending should have been the choice between the cleansing forest fire of the Reapers allowing new life to grow and flourish vs. the very probable permanent extinction of all sentient life in the galaxy.  The destruction of the mass relays made sense, but they should have known that would happen ahead of time to drive home the consequences of their choice.  Everyone who showed up to fight in the final battle knew they were going to die, so I don't have a problem with them all being stranded and starving or whatever.

 

I also don't have a problem with Joker bugging out - given the choice between saving EDI or Shepard I think it's clear who wins that one. 

 

The best possible outcome should have shown a few stragglers surviving on the homeworlds wondering if there are enough left alive to continue, or how long until they die out.  That could have set up a new chapter with the next 'hero' searching for a new world (Lost Jerusalem) to begin again. The 'standard' ending should have been the destruction of everything, but at least everyone died on their own terms.

[gothpunkboy89]

It's no surprise that you'd hide behind some supposed defense of creativity rather than add anything of substance. You're a joke.

 

You're right that the Reapers don't share every aspect of Eldrich or Lovecraftian monsters, but like them, the Reapers benefit from their "otherness."

 

 

ad ho·mi·nem

ˌad ˈhämənəm/

adverb & adjective

adverb: ad hominem; adjective: ad hominem

1.

(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

 

-Looks at your reply and how you make a direct comparison to Eldrich/Lovecraftian monsters and how Reapers should have no real story and be just like them-

 

Yea don't see it. Again though nice use of Wiki to try and discount my entire post by using a big word that would score you big points on scrabble. The direction BioWare decided to take the Reapers allows them to stand out if only slightly from the crowd. Because again the basic set up that the Reapers represent have been used time and time and time again. Big scary things that do things for big scary things reasons and can only be stopped by plot devices isn't interesting after the 800th it is used.

[gothpunkboy89]

The problem with Mass Effect's ending came in the third game when they started to screw with things like curing the genophage and reconciling the Quarian and Geth. Hope and Triumph are themes completely out of place in this story.

 

 

The entire trilogy is about home and triumph. So how is it out of place here?