3598 réponses à ce sujet

[Natureguy85]

I'll tell you why the disconnect between Trilogy and "start with ME3" exists, at least as far as what you two are talking about.

 

Mass Effect had a good plot and good characters. But most of the characters personal stories are for world building, perhaps more than they are to characterize those squadmates. Mass Effect 2 had a trash plot but put a lot more into the characters. Their stories really are for them to be fleshed out characters. Our attachment to the series is now wrapped up in the characters we like. The Genophage was interesting history in ME1, but we really care about it because of Wrex and Mordin. We really care about the Quarians and Geth because of Tali and Legion. People like the other characters to varying degrees as well.

 

Enter ME3. Let's look at Grissom. For the series player, the emotion of that mission is Jack. She will get all the attention and interest, so the class doesn't need much characterization or screen time because their only purpose is to characterize Jack. However, for the player starting with ME3, or a playthrough where Jack died, there has to be something in the mission, so the kids have to actually be written to carry the emotional weight.

 

I only played through ME3 once, so I really don't know if every mission does this, but it's pretty clear to me from hearing you two discuss the differences.

[kal_reegar]

Still discussing the ending? Great!

 

 

I post my most recent interpretation of ME3 (imho, it was terribile before the extented cut, and brilliant after).

 

 

 

THE CATALYST

• The catalyst is an advanced AI and his task is to solve the chaos problem (synthetcs-organics conflict, singularity etc). The reapers are his current solution.

• The catalyst controls the reapers but in a very “weak” way (it's not the same "direct" control of Harb vs Collector's leader: the catalyst embodies the collective intelligence of the reapers, so the Catalyst can  influence the reapers, every reapers mantains an individuality, within certain limits).

• The catalyst doens't control the citadel. Not the arms and the relays, at least. Maybe he does, but it's simpler to assume that he doesn't: we may assume that in ME he was asleep or something like that, but we never see him controlling anything, even when it would have been useful for his purposes. He need Saren, Sovereign, Cerberus, Tim and finally Shepard to do the job done. Occam razor.

• He probably doesn't even control the magic elevator. In low EMS scenario, he said "why are you here"? If he controls the elevator, this sentence makes no sense.

• So he probably doesn't even control the crucible. Referring to the choices, he says "I can't make it happen" -> he needs Shepard to use the crucible. So I assume that he probably can't even shut off the crucible at will. After all, in refusal ending all we see is the beam of light turning off (see also the crucible: point 3)

• So I can summarize point 3-4-5 in one general and no-exceptions statement: the catalyst is incapable of direct, material actions, he only has INFLUENCE OVER THE REAPERS.

THE CRUCIBLE ITSELF

• The crucible is little more than a rude power source (from the catalyst point of view at least), but in combination with the citadel is capable of realising a huge amount of energy. No hacking, no blocking, just a powerful weapon of mass destruction.

• We don't know who designed it (very likely not the Leviathans, because the catalyst says "you wouldn't know them" -> and Shepard knows the Leviathans). We only know that its design evolved many times

THE CRUCIBLE DOCKING

Once the crucible docked, shepard is brought in front of the catalyst. The crucible is not working.
The 1 million dollars question is: why the catalyst doesn't shut of the crucible or, if he can't do that, why doesn't he order to the reapers to destroy it and to continue the cycle? Or, if can't give direct orders to the reapers (we've assumed that he hasn't a strong, direct control over the reapers) why does he seem to desire the crubile being preserved (not destroyed by the reapers)? 
The reason is resumable in one sentece: the variables have been altered.

More specifically:

1. his solution (reapers) won't work anymore. Why? Cit: JShepppp: "The Crucible has been proven possible and a real threat, that its mere existence as a tangible object - and not a dreamy idea - changes things completely because one day the Reapers will be defeated by it" (and refusal ending proves it -> "the reapers are no longer a threat". Even if the crucible is not used, the reapers are done. Defeated by the next cycle or simply "fired" by the catalyst after completing the current harvest)
Cit. JShepppp "I guess at a VERY basic level, an analogous situation would be someone using fire as a weapon [...], hearing of water existing but never seeing it, then finally seeing that water actually exists. Even if their fire is not extinguished, their fire is no longer the invincible weapon it was"

2. the crucible changed him, created new possibilities. The original solution won't work anymore, but new solutions are now available. All of them are better than the reapers.
- synthesis -> do I really need to explain why this is the perfect solution from the catalyst point of view?
- control -> the reapers are "upgraded" with a new catalyst (or with shepardized catalyst 2.0), thanks to Shepard's memories and consciousness and readiness etc.
- destroy -> this cycle has proven itself worthy, and since crucible>>>reapers (it can destroy all of the synt in few minutes) -> organics have proven that they can effectively deal with the synthetics threat (or, at least, better than the reapers)

And that's why the catalyst helps shepard, gives him information, doesn't shut off the crucible and/or "stops" the reapers from blasting the crucible.
The variables have been altered, and both shepard and the catalyst need the crucible to be activated, if they want to achive their goals.


So, if the catalyst
- doesn't completely control the reapers
- is incapable of direct, material actions (see my previous post)

and if the docking of the crucible has
1. demonstrated that the Reaper-cycle solution is imperfect (point a) has to change)
2. provided better options

well, the catalyst actions make perfect sense. He want the crucible to be used before the reapers destroy it (and he can't stop them... is like, for example, a general who "control" his army, but can't make every single man to stop fighting once they are fighting... or, to quote tha banner saga, it the same difference between convincing a child to sit still and convincing a hungry bear to do the same . Influence and control can exist at different levels)
So he need shepard.

 

Another valid answer to the 1 million dollar question can be "because the crucible hacked the catalyst, forcing him to do whatever Shepard decides".
There is nothing flawed in this answer, but imo is little more complicated to justify. Some stretching is needed.
More specifically, you need to decontestualize "the crucible changed me" (it created new possibilities =/= it hacked me) and to classify as wrong/lies:
- THE CRUCIBLE: point 1 -> if the crucible is able to hack the catalyst is A LOT more than a RUDE power source
- THE CRUCIBLE: point 2 -> Leviathans were the only one to know about the catalyst. And if they didn't design it, how could races infinitely less advanced than the reapers manage to hack their collective intelligence, something they didn't even know existed?

[angol fear]

But why does it turn from terrible to brilliant with the extended cut ?

[kal_reegar]

The original version was a mess, confused and rushed: it was almost impossibile to understand what was going on. A lot of speculations for everyone.

The EC provides logical (or at leat acceptable) explanations.

 

So, the EC is brilliant, almost miraculous, imho.

The ending remains a little disappointing, of course. They could have done it a lot better.

[Vanilka]

I think that ever since Bioware started to take a screenwriter's approach to video game storytelling with ME1 they increasing neglected the roleplaying aspects of their games. I've discussed some of the effects here and here. There has been a reversal in DAI (not drastic, but at least significant), but up to ME3 that trend remained unbroken in both of their active universes. I summarized this as follows: 
 

I think ME3 is the current culmination of a trend that increasingly doesn't let players act, but lets games act upon them instead. Increasingly, developers didn't think about what the player might want to do rather than what they wanted the player to do, which is, in my point of view, anathema to roleplaying.

 
There is, of course, a natural antagonism between a storyteller and a roleplaying and their respective needs, Bioware has managed, in the past, to find a number of sweet spots, and made games that were reasonably good in both storytelling and roleplaying. They appeared to have forgotten how to find those with the advent of fully voiced protagonists and the consequent focus on character drama which often came at the expense of common sense and plot coherence. The strong focus on controversy contributed to that inability to find those sweet spots, because of course controversial themes need more plot forking and most importantly, more options for character expression to work in a game that takes its roleplaying seriously, and both had become increasingly expensive.
 
In any case, neglecting roleplaying as much as in ME3 backfired at least with a lot of old fans. I have no idea if that played any role in the decision to make DAI less restrictive, but the post-ME3 explosion was certainly big enough that they should've started thinking about what went wrong. The direction taken with DAI was right from my POV, but they haven't found those sweet spots of their older games again. In DAI we were forced into a role defined by faith, another controversial theme that barely avoided exploding in their faces again because they actually facilitated roleplaying at a few key points (as opposed to ME3), but it still wasn't enough to feel natural in the face of the role we were put into and to which I could never object as strongly as I wanted.
 
I am somewhat curious what they'll come up with next.

 

Great posts and well said! The trend of taking control away from the player and replacing common sense and proper writing with cheap pathos has been more and more apparent in the past few years. I have been with BioWare since I played Nevewinter Nights and their games have definitely seen a lot of development. Sometimes for the better, sometimes for worse as with the aforementioned. Your posts also describe well how I felt while playing DAII, ME2 and ME3 at times. The last two in particular. Getting railroaded into working with Cerberus without any sort of decent, reasonable, non-WTF explanation, for one. (My first and favourite Shep was and is the Sole Survivor, so you can imagine how I feel about Cerberus.) Not only it does that but then keeps punishing you for a choice you've never made in the first place, but that was simply forced upon you. The game deciding for me how my Shepard feels about things, losing the number of dialogue options, Shepard getting handed the idiot ball every time the writers need some drama or make another character (TIM, Kai Leng, etc.) look cool, auto-dialogue, my character acting on her own where it's absolutely unnecessary... So, yes, I've got to agree.

 

Hell, I love this franchise, but it pisses me off so much sometimes. It likely pisses me off exactly because of that, because otherwise I'd just turn around and never look back.

 

I do think DAI is largely a step in the right direction. It's not perfect, it does have its issues, but most of the time it gives me a pretty good illusion of choice, as far as I am concerned, and little trouble to roleplay, very often also thanks to the increased companion interaction. (You're right that we can't object as strongly as we should be able to, given the Inquisitor can be a Qunari, dwarf, or a Dalish, to people pushing our character into the position of a religious icon, though. There are still some options at least.) 

 

However, as far as I know, ME and DA are made by different teams and often even writers (while some work on both), which is why the games also feel so different and often develop in very different ways, as well, despite following similar formulas (adventuring in a party, emphasis on the characters, romances, etc). I have no idea whether they actually learn from the other's mistakes and successes or not. And DAI's approach seems to address complaints about DAII more than anything else.

 

Enter ME3. Let's look at Grissom. For the series player, the emotion of that mission is Jack. She will get all the attention and interest, so the class doesn't need much characterization or screen time because their only purpose is to characterize Jack. However, for the player starting with ME3, or a playthrough where Jack died, there has to be something in the mission, so the kids have to actually be written to carry the emotional weight. 

I agree with this part in particular. (I think you can make one care in various ways, but I've never actually studied writing besides a little bit of it as a hobby, so that's just my opinion. All I know is that Garrus did absolutely nothing to make me care about his race, and the reason I cared about quarians is because I got exposed to them and their lives and troubles where even barely named civilians helped, and, yes, Tali.) Either way, it's only natural they needed to replace the characters that might get killed off in ME2 and needed to make it at least equally interesting in such case. That makes perfect sense. To me it's not really about the class needing or not needing characterisation. For me, after reading what Daemul said, it is about there being quality content purposely left out if Jack is alive. I don't think those things are mutually exclusive and I think the experience of the students very much has place in the story and atmosphere it is going for. Another example: On YouTube, I watched the convo that takes place when Shepard wakes up after one of the bad dreams and talks to Liara through the bathroom door and the non-imported Shep gets better, more relevant dialogue options while they get locked out for the imported Shep. The extra dialogue options are there, but you're not allowed to touch them when you play imported Shep.

 

It's all these little aggravations piled together and the ending is just such a perfect cherry on top. I do have to give BioWare credit for changing things around if circumstances are different, though. I have such mixed feelings about this issue, seriously.

 

Anyway, I'm rambling at this point.

[Natureguy85]

I agree with this part in particular. (I think you can make one care in various ways, but I've never actually studied writing besides a little bit of it as a hobby, so that's just my opinion. All I know is that Garrus did absolutely nothing to make me care about his race, and the reason I cared about quarians is because I got exposed to them and their lives and troubles where even barely named civilians helped, and, yes, Tali.)

 

Exactly. The importance of the characterization is the difference between the kids in the class and Some Kid that we see dying in the intro and are supposed to believe is the specter (no pun intended) haunting Shepard as a symbol of humanity throughout the war. It's easier to care about the former as people where the latter is an obvious attempt to manipulate us because it's a child.

 

(I took the name Some Kid from Shamus Young in his excellent Mass Effect Retrospective series)

[Vanilka]

Some Kid that we see dying in the intro and are supposed to believe is the specter (no pun intended) haunting Shepard as a symbol of humanity throughout the war. It's easier to care about the former as people where the latter is an obvious attempt to manipulate us because it's a child.

I like calling it "Some Kid" because that's exactly what he is and has always been to me, which makes the dreams so jarring. (I honestly believe my Shepard is much more likely to have nightmares about the Virmire Victim, losing her friends and crew, losing the war, etc.) One of the prime examples of forcing how Shepard feels upon the player and a good point Ieldra made in one of their linked posts. 

 

(I took the name Some Kid from Shamus Young in his excellent Mass Effect Retrospective series)

 

Indeed, I immediately recognised it. I love his articles. I've read every single one.

[Natureguy85]

I like calling it "Some Kid" because that's exactly what he is and has always been to me, which makes the dreams so jarring. (I honestly believe my Shepard is much more likely to have nightmares about the Virmire Victim, losing her friends and crew, losing the war, etc.) One of the prime examples of forcing how Shepard feels upon the player and a good point a Ieldra made in one of their linked posts. 

 

 

Indeed, I immediately recognised it. I love his articles. I've read every single one.

 

I am just giving attribution and taking an opportunity to drop the links

 

You're right, and the one thing I did like about the dreams was how you can hear lines from dead teammates. Subtitles help. Of course, that meant I missed out on my one playthrough because I imported a no casualty ME2 run.

[rossler]

The original version was a mess, confused and rushed: it was almost impossibile to understand what was going on. A lot of speculations for everyone.

The EC provides logical (or at leat acceptable) explanations.

 

So, the EC is brilliant, almost miraculous, imho.

The ending remains a little disappointing, of course. They could have done it a lot better.

 

What was so confusing about the original ending?

[gothpunkboy89]

I think that ever since Bioware started to take a screenwriter's approach to video game storytelling with ME1 they increasing neglected the roleplaying aspects of their games. I've discussed some of the effects here and here. There has been a reversal in DAI (not drastic, but at least significant), but up to ME3 that trend remained unbroken in both of their active universes. I summarized this as follows:

 

There is, of course, a natural antagonism between a storyteller and a roleplaying and their respective needs, Bioware has managed, in the past, to find a number of sweet spots, and made games that were reasonably good in both storytelling and roleplaying. They appeared to have forgotten how to find those with the advent of fully voiced protagonists and the consequent focus on character drama which often came at the expense of common sense and plot coherence. The strong focus on controversy contributed to that inability to find those sweet spots, because of course controversial themes need more plot forking and most importantly, more options for character expression to work in a game that takes its roleplaying seriously, and both had become increasingly expensive.

 

In any case, neglecting roleplaying as much as in ME3 backfired at least with a lot of old fans. I have no idea if that played any role in the decision to make DAI less restrictive, but the post-ME3 explosion was certainly big enough that they should've started thinking about what went wrong. The direction taken with DAI was right from my POV, but they haven't found those sweet spots of their older games again. In DAI we were forced into a role defined by faith, another controversial theme that barely avoided exploding in their faces again because they actually facilitated roleplaying at a few key points (as opposed to ME3), but it still wasn't enough to feel natural in the face of the role we were put into and to which I could never object as strongly as I wanted.

 

I am somewhat curious what they'll come up with next.  

 

They didn't really neglect role playing for the ME games. They are telling a story and within that story you are given free control to act how you want to act. Choices within that game have an impact. The effects might be minimized in the squeal due to game play reasons other wise by ME 3 they would need 3-4 different versions of the game which just isn't financially feasible.

 

If I save the Rachni Queen in ME 1 and again in ME 3 characters talk about it if I choose not to save the queen they talk about that. If I choose to leave or save the false queen characters respond to that as well.  I have 4 different Shepards who do things for 4 different reasons. Inevitably there will be some over lap between the choices but it is done for different reasons. Currently doing the Omega DLC and my current Renegade Vangaurd was perfectly find with Aria's plans right up to a point when he responded with not letting her cut a bloody swath though the streets of Omega putting innocent lives at risk. 

 

He is ruthless willing to kill anyone who gets in his way and use anything at his disposal to win. But won't put innocents or friends at risk unless necessary. Which is a direct comparison to other play thoughts were he is the super nice paragon guy or the super  bad renegade guy Or the sort of nice paragon guy.

 

I don't know what your definition seems to be but I would call that role playing when I am capable of constructing and acting out a personality created entirely in my head within the game world. I am give small and large choices and no choice is really the singular correct one. And all this leads up to the ending which again there is no singular correct ending choice despite what some on the forums will argue.

 

Again though maybe you have a different definition of role playing.

[Natureguy85]

The first game was about the reveal of the Reapers. Yes, you beat Saren, but you learned that an unstoppable force of pure evil was coming to destroy everything. Not much hope or triumph there.

 

The second game was more of the same - we learned more about the cycle, and how the Protheans were turned into collectors. The collectors had turned entire colonies of humans into goo. We get to feel good that we saved our crew, but that doesn't bring back everyone already gone. True, the collectors were stopped, but their work was done, and the final shot of the game was of the massive invasion fleet of Reapers coming in. Not much hope or triumph to be found.

 

Enter the third game. Suddenly, we're solving problems and making people happy. Genophage is able to be cured. The Krogan may have 'enlightened' leadership in Eve and Wrex. The Geth and Quarian can put aside their differences (which is completely out of place on its own, but that's a different topic). The final space battle isn't even treated like the suicide mission that it is.

 

 

I may be biased because I've heard the story before in several forms, but ultimately it's about fighting to the end in the face of oblivion. Choosing your fate, even if that fate is destruction, rather than allowing your fate to be imposed upon you. Breaking the cycle that guarantees a status quo where people live, even if it ultimately leads to your destruction. 

 

My personal hunch is that someone decided the ending would be too bleak or too esoteric for most gamers, and seeing how few people know about Xenosaga or understand the anime ending to Evangelion, I can't say that they were wrong. Unfortunately, the story had already progressed down one path so far that putting in those 'twists' just caused it to become more confusing thematically, as well as bringing up some major plot holes/inconsistencies.

 

The first game does end on a triumphant note, but it also looks forward to the greater challenge ahead. The second to last scene stands with Shepard standing on top of a chunk of Sovereign before walking down to Shepard’s theme music. The last scene is Shepard committing to destroying the Reapers and he/she storms off to figure out how. ME2 doesn’t do this quite as well because the dialogue is spent on TIM and the focus on the Reapers is handled through a cutscene with no dialogue. The music is awesome and I do like the view of the Reapers moving into the light, but it’s purely for the audience, not Shepard.

 

We’ve been solving problems and making people happy for the entire series. Dealing with the Genophage and the Quarian/Geth conflict is not out of place nor surprising. Those conflicts were mainly for worldbuilding in the first game, but the second game broadened both and allowed Shepard to voice more of an opinion. Resolving them in the third game was expected.

 

Fighting to the end in the face of oblivion is certainly one way to go and can work. The first game let a glimmer of that in when Sovereign asks “Is submission not preferable to extinction?” and the clear answer is “no.” Sometimes the protagonists lose, particularly if the conflict is actually only the frame for a character story. The movies Glory and The Mission stand out in my mind. Starting with Mass Effect 2, where the Reaper story was almost nonexistent, the focus moved heavily onto the characters rather than the plot. Star Wars focus on characters is why its ok that the Rebellion wins after the Emperor is dead and the Death Star is destroyed. That is REALLY hard to pull off in a video game though. 

 

The other problem is that the series constantly has Shepard overcome crazy odds and old conflicts. To have the end not follow that in ANY variation doesn’t work. I think that should have been a possible outcome, but not the only one.

 

 

 

 

The presented choices are basically the antitheses to what was presented as 'right' during most of the trilogy.

Trilogy: Diversity is nothing bad.  Synthesis: All become the same! (I previously compared that to the Borg, but received a "there are no Borg in ME" as answer)

Trilogy: Let stuff live.                    Destroy: Kill more stuff!

Trilogy: Control is bad.                 Control: -.-

 

Refuse is going against these choices, favouring the original themes.

"I will fight for freedom, mine and everyone's. [...] for the right to choose our own fate"

(Missing something that goes directly against destroy, but the 'choosing ones own fate' also covers that somewhat)

 

I think the last time I also posted parts in the trilogy where these themes surface more than usual, I might backtrack to find it.

 

That’s a good way to put it. The Control ending goes against the idea of self-determination and solving your own problems. Not only will the galaxy have to bend to Shepard-Catalyst’s will, but will be somewhat restricted in the same way that the galaxy is implied to be restricted by simply being given the advancements of the Reapers’ technology.

 

I don’t think you need something to go against Destroy because the only thing wrong with it is sacrificing only Synthetics and that not being given the weight it deserves given that the game has been trying to tell you that they are people too.

 

 

 

You brought up the Eldrich/Lovecraftian first stating that they work fine without any detailed back story. I reply that yes they obviously got inspiration from them but then they went their own way with them. Not creating an exact copy of how Lovecraft handles his monsters. That this shows a sign of creativity and an attempt to create something of their own rather then just copy pasting existing concepts and set ups. Which any idiot can do.

 

Try harder with your false strawman cries.

 

If it were a false strawman cry, you wouldn’t have changed your phrasing to accurately characterize what I said here after mischaracterizing it before. And that’s exactly right. They are similar and both gain from their “otherness.” That’s not a reason to never give more detail, but it can’t be ignored either.

 

 

 

 

The next part is were any attempt to talk to you will break down because you are so set on your ideology that the Catalyst is stupid I might as well be talking about the benefits of atheism to a religious zealot. So rather then trying to talk with you at this point I'm going going to talk to you. The Catalyst isn't mad, insane or evil killing simply because they can which is now almost the stereotype when dealing with that particular set up. It was created to solve a specific problem that came about because Organic races enter into a self destructive cycle with the artificial life they create. If it was limited to a single planet or a single race it would be one thing but it has the capability to spread endangering not just the creator but all organic life in the galaxy. After trying multiple attempts it went with the only plan that would work the preservation of organic races and their history in the near immortal shell of the Reaper. Everything it does makes logical sense. The issues come about when people like you attempt to over simplify or out right ignore what you don't want to hear to allow you to claim it is idiotic.

 

Part of me wants to know where this chip on your shoulder regarding religion comes from, but the rest of me knows it’s going to be something stupid.

 

I understand all that about the Catalyst. You like to do plot recaps so you can pretend we don’t all know these things. Your problem isn’t your lack of knowledge of the events of the plot; it’s your lack of understanding.

 

The things it does do not make logical sense because we can think up better solutions that take the Catalyst’s premise as a given. And, to counter someone else I will address later, the Catalyst simply saying “I tried other things but they didn’t work” is not going to cut it. Look at the Architect in The Matrix Reloaded. He tells you about his previous attempts, why they didn’t work, and why the current system did work.  We also know why the machines put humans in their machine. We don’t know what is so great about being a Reaper and what value organic goop in a shell has. While organic material might be preserved in the Reaper, LIFE is not. Those organics are dead.

 

 

 

Seriously how many times has the straw man popped up "well EDI was friendly" as if EDI is the sum total representation of all possible synthetic life in all it's variations.

 

That’s not a strawman. Is it that hard to learn what words mean? A strawman is by definition something you argue AGAINST. 

 

 

 

The route they went with the Reapers is far more original then the route you would have them go. Sorry but robo Cthulhu isn't very original.

 

And there is something to be said for originality, but that doesn’t automatically make it good. The route they went was stupid nonsense and that outweighs whatever credit they got for originality.

 

 

 

ME3- During the darkness of the Reaper invasion they put all their hope in the Crucible that it will work. During that time Shepard and crew travel the galaxy uniting the races together and giving them hope that they can together beat the Reapers. At the end which ever choice you make results in you being triumphant as you end the Reaper War. Even the refuse option ends in triumph though for the next cycle as they were able to defeat the Reapers with the help of the in game cycle.

 

It’s actually more faith in the Crucible because they know nothing about it. Shouldn’t that make you hate it automatically?

 

 

And is still only 1 individual. The game shows the growth of an individual nothing more.

 

Only one counterexample is needed to break an “always” claim. Also, we should remember that the series treats species as very monolithic.

[rossler]

The first game let a glimmer of that in when Sovereign asks “Is submission not preferable to extinction?” and the clear answer is “no.”

 

You mean Saren?

[gothpunkboy89]

If it were a false strawman cry, you wouldn’t have changed your phrasing to accurately characterize what I said here after mischaracterizing it before. And that’s exactly right. They are similar and both gain from their “otherness.” That’s not a reason to never give more detail, but it can’t be ignored either. 

 

You want them to rest on the fact they have an otherness about them. I point out how boring it is and lack of creativity to do yet another copy of the exact same thing. And then you cry I am stating you want nothing about them. That is a straw man if ever I saw one because you are not actually addressing what I posted but inventing something I did not state to bypass the need to respond to it. Creativity of any kind is always important in this world and BioWare attempting to make the Reapers more then yet another not deeply explained Eldritch horror is frankly boring. There is a reason why the horror slasher movies aren't being made a lot anymore. It is an over played premise that isn't interesting because it lacks creativity. You have seen one you have seen the rest.

 

 

Part of me wants to know where this chip on your shoulder regarding religion comes from, but the rest of me knows it’s going to be something stupid.

 

I understand all that about the Catalyst. You like to do plot recaps so you can pretend we don’t all know these things. Your problem isn’t your lack of knowledge of the events of the plot; it’s your lack of understanding.

 

The things it does do not make logical sense because we can think up better solutions that take the Catalyst’s premise as a given. And, to counter someone else I will address later, the Catalyst simply saying “I tried other things but they didn’t work” is not going to cut it. Look at the Architect in The Matrix Reloaded. He tells you about his previous attempts, why they didn’t work, and why the current system did work.  We also know why the machines put humans in their machine. We don’t know what is so great about being a Reaper and what value organic goop in a shell has. While organic material might be preserved in the Reaper, LIFE is not. Those organics are dead.

 

 

Us a small figure of speech and you complain. Well I had a nice long paragraph to explain it. Instead I will go with this:

 

 

Because it is such a catchy song.

 

But on the actual topic organic life is more then simply a handful of races. If for example all the Asari died it would not mean all organic life is killed. If tomorrow all humans on earth suddenly died it would not mean all organic life would be gone. It is pure grade A ego that makes any individual or group suddenly think they are the singular representation of everything. Organic life does not end because the Reapers harvested the Asari, Turian, Humans, Salarians, Quarians, Vorcha, Elcor, Volus and the rest shown in the game. Just like organic life did not end when the Reapers showed up and harvested the Protheans and those various races.  In any system some life can and will go extinct all on it's own.

 

The best example would be a fruit tree. The tree grows and produces fruit at their peak the Reapers come and harvest it. That action doesn't actually kill the tree it just removes what it produced. Over time new fruit will form on it. No matter how many times the Reapers harvest the tree it will continue to bear fruit again and again. The synthetic over running they warn about would be more the equivalent of them cutting off all the branches and driving copper nails into each of the stumps. Ensuring it won't regrow back.  Which if you notice is very different then what the Reapers do.

 

That’s not a strawman. Is it that hard to learn what words mean? A strawman is by definition something you argue AGAINST.

 

Well the argument is a sham either way.

 

And there is something to be said for originality, but that doesn’t automatically make it good. The route they went was stupid nonsense and that outweighs whatever credit they got for originality.

 

Only because you don't like the route they went because again you disagree with the basis of the story. Because you have clearly stated you want the vagueness without any detailed explanation because....reasons I guess. You haven't really given to much other then previous Eldritch Horrors are set up with minimal explanations.  Even though arguably the bad guy who is doing something bad because they think it is the best thing to do is a much more intersting antagonist then one doing bad things just because they can.

 

It’s actually more faith in the Crucible because they know nothing about it. Shouldn’t that make you hate it automatically?

 

Hope and faith can be used interchangeably in that statement. Their faith is based on the hope the crucible will be able to stop the Reapers.

 

Only one counterexample is needed to break an “always” claim. Also, we should remember that the series treats species as very monolithic. 

 

Not necessarily. Particularly when that one example isn't capable of stopping the rest. 300 years from now and the majority of AI's revolt and kill off all organics and the minority of AI's that stand with organics. Doesn't change the fact that the Catalyst's words would be true.  Doesn't really matter if they treat species as monolithic. That only goes as far as basic cultural things to establish generalities about the various races. At no point in the game does it show Garrus's development being matched by every other Turian in the game. At no point does Tali's development match ever Quarian in the game. Wrex's development doesn't match every Krogan in the game. This is particularly evident in ME 2 were it is clear he has to forcibly push his ideas on some of the more stubborn clans. There are instances of the various races sort of coming a long the lines of the character's development like if you make peace between Quarian and Geth but that is well after Tali has already developed into not hating Geth and being more sympathetic towards them. But it doesn't mean all Quarians agree with her as she states some Quarians are allowing Geth into their suits to alter the environment to mimic infections to increase their immune system. Some being the key word not all.

[Uncle Jo]

[Vanilka]

I am just giving attribution and taking an opportunity to drop the links
 
You're right, and the one thing I did like about the dreams was how you can hear lines from dead teammates. Subtitles help. Of course, that meant I missed out on my one playthrough because I imported a no casualty ME2 run.

 
Sorry, didn't mean to imply anything. Just that the articles are good, heh.
 
I'd like to take this opportunity to share my favourite: Plan B From Outer Space The reason for that is that it talks about what ME1 possibly set up for the following games and I think it's an interesting read. It shows that the first game provided plenty of ground and exciting ideas for how to continue the franchise. I'd have loved to explore them.

[Iakus]

 

The best example would be a fruit tree. The tree grows and produces fruit at their peak the Reapers come and harvest it. That action doesn't actually kill the tree it just removes what it produced. Over time new fruit will form on it. No matter how many times the Reapers harvest the tree it will continue to bear fruit again and again. The synthetic over running they warn about would be more the equivalent of them cutting off all the branches and driving copper nails into each of the stumps. Ensuring it won't regrow back.  Which if you notice is very different then what the Reapers do.

 

But organic life is not a fruit tree.  Harvest fruit from a tree, the trees live.  You can even plant new trees from the seeds in the fruit.

 

What the reapers do is GENOCIDE!  They slaughter entire races AND THEY DON'T COME BACK.  Each advanced life form they kill is a unique being that is now DEAD.  The Protheans are all DEAD.  The Inusannon are DEAD.   

[gothpunkboy89]

But organic life is not a fruit tree.  Harvest fruit from a tree, the trees live.  You can even plant new trees from the seeds in the fruit.

 

What the reapers do is GENOCIDE!  They slaughter entire races AND THEY DON'T COME BACK.  Each advanced life form they kill is a unique being that is now DEAD.  The Protheans are all DEAD.  The Inusannon are DEAD.   

 

 

But life is like a fruit tree. Things die and new things replace them all the time. What was it now...it was estimated by scientist that roughly 90% of all life that has ever existed on this planet has died.  We certainly can't claim credit for killing most of them. Yet organic life seems undiminished by this fact. And that is just this planet alone. There has to be other planets capable of supporting life out there and realistically there will be ones that have gone though a similar cycle.  Galaxy wide we are looking at trillions of species that have gone extinct over the years. And yet organic life continues. Humans exist because those thousands of other species went extinct.

 

The issues with the S v. O is that Organics create a self destructive cycle that ends up killing them off. The problem is that cycle can extend beyond the singular race that creates them. Now normally in nature if something like say a panda over specializes it self and the changing planetary conditions cause mass bamboo die off and the panda eventually dies off. Nature being a self correcting system would simply develop a new version of it.  Synthetics how ever due to their synthetic creation are out side of nature's control.  They can spread uncontrolled and alter the entire system nature has set up without really hurting them. And as they spread they can alter the natural balance of other worlds as well in ways even organics couldn't do without rendering it incapable of supporting them.

[BloodyMares]

But life is like a fruit tree. Things die and new things replace them all the time. What was it now...it was estimated by scientist that roughly 90% of all life that has ever existed on this planet has died.  We certainly can't claim credit for killing most of them. Yet organic life seems undiminished by this fact. And that is just this planet alone. There has to be other planets capable of supporting life out there and realistically there will be ones that have gone though a similar cycle.  Galaxy wide we are looking at trillions of species that have gone extinct over the years. And yet organic life continues. Humans exist because those thousands of other species went extinct.

 

The issues with the S v. O is that Organics create a self destructive cycle that ends up killing them off. The problem is that cycle can extend beyond the singular race that creates them. Now normally in nature if something like say a panda over specializes it self and the changing planetary conditions cause mass bamboo die off and the panda eventually dies off. Nature being a self correcting system would simply develop a new version of it.  Synthetics how ever due to their synthetic creation are out side of nature's control.  They can spread uncontrolled and alter the entire system nature has set up without really hurting them. And as they spread they can alter the natural balance of other worlds as well in ways even organics couldn't do without rendering it incapable of supporting them.

So, to summarize it all: you are saying that the Catalyst is doing everything he does because he misunderstood his vague instructions, right? Leviathans give him the mandate to preserve life (ALL life and every species should be alive, not just new ones) from synthetic threat while the Catalyst misinterprets it as to maintain life in the bigger and philosophical meaning (while there is at least one organism is left alive it means the organic life is still preserved). Am I correct about your point?

[Vanilka]

So, to summarize it all: you are saying that the Catalyst is doing everything he does because he misunderstood his vague instructions, right? Leviathans give him the mandate to preserve life (ALL life and every species should be alive, not just new ones) from synthetic threat while the Catalyst misinterprets it as to maintain life in the bigger and philosophical meaning (while there is at least one organism is left alive it means the organic life is still preserved). Am I correct about your point?

 

What I find funny about this in particular is that the Leviathan, thriving on the thrall races which they supposedly wanted to preserve, would find the organic goo absolutely useless. Epic programming fail.

[BloodyMares]

What I find funny about this in particular is that the Leviathan, thriving on the thrall races which they supposedly wanted to preserve, would find the organic goo absolutely useless. Epic programming fail.

Well, to be honest, Reapers are better tools for them then just organic species (Leviathan is able to shut down a big Reaper but I don't know if they are able to really control them like they do with Brutes etc. From their perspective Reapers of course present a better value then organic species but it's besides the point really because building a Reaper doesn't equal to preserving organic life (which Catalyst says he does).
The Boy says that Reapers are his solution so I understood it like in his perverted mind the Reaper is supposed to be the Ark for organic species (turned into organic goo to make space) so they are preserved in Reaper form and are saved from synthetics. Instead, if we go by gothpunkboy's logic, Reapers are not a solution but rather a tool, a weapon that he uses to cleanse the universe from advanced species and collects their material just to expand his army. You know, the funny thing is that it really is a good explanation to their plan (it's still wrong thematically though). From the first game and on we are told that Reapers are harvesting organics to build more Reapers. It would make a perfect sense that this way they just expand their numbers to harvest more efficiently and because we see them just shooting and blowing up people anyway (killing off advanced species to make room for new life). Instead we got that whole "Reapers are preserved organics!" bs.

[Vanilka]

Well, to be honest, Reapers are better tools for them then just organic species (Leviathan is able to shut down a big Reaper but I don't know if they are able to really control them like they do with Brutes etc. From their perspective Reapers of course present a better value then organic species but it's besides the point really because building a Reaper doesn't equal to preserving organic life (which Catalyst says he does).
The Boy says that Reapers are his solution so I understood it like in his perverted mind the Reaper is supposed to be the Ark for organic species (turned into organic goo to make space) so they are preserved in Reaper form and are saved from synthetics. Instead, if we go by gothpunkboy's logic, Reapers are not a solution but rather a tool, a weapon that he uses to cleanse the universe from advanced species and collects their material just to expand his army. You know, the funny thing is that it really is a good explanation to their plan (it's still wrong thematically though). From the first game and on we are told that Reapers are harvesting organics to build more Reapers. It would make a perfect sense that this way they just expand their numbers to harvest more efficiently and because we see them just shooting and blowing up people anyway (killing off advanced species to make room for new life). Instead we got that whole "Reapers are preserved organics!" bs.

 

I think that's up to discussion because what can the Reapers do that the Leviathan cannot already? Making Reapers is basically making more of themselves. When they already had no match. They were like gods in their time. And we never see the Reaper mutants do anything else but drool and mindlessly attack things. However, if you need something that requires an obedient ant...? (Like the Keepers.) You make an interesting point, though.

 

Either way, I don't care what the buggy thing thinks or says. Leviathan made it clear they didn't imagine it to do what it did. (They talk about the Catalyst betraying them, which means that it did things they didn't want it to or perhaps even program it to. But I think having your creation unexpectedly turn on you and make your race go pretty much extinct speaks for itself as regards how good the programming was.)

 

I'm on the same boat with you, though, that the Reapers were perfectly fine when they were just collecting organics to build more Reapers. Made much more sense. (In the first game, I thought they collected and repurposed their technology to upgrade themselves or something, which would explain why the galaxy is always wiped clean, as well, and why the organics have to develop technologically first.)

[gothpunkboy89]

So, to summarize it all: you are saying that the Catalyst is doing everything he does because he misunderstood his vague instructions, right? Leviathans give him the mandate to preserve life (ALL life and every species should be alive, not just new ones) from synthetic threat while the Catalyst misinterprets it as to maintain life in the bigger and philosophical meaning (while there is at least one organism is left alive it means the organic life is still preserved). Am I correct about your point?

 

It is statements like this that really make me think of a quote from Sovereign.

 

https://youtu.be/JvrIFIjTGt0?t=16s

 

You seem to enjoy attempting to over simplify the problem(s) so you can come up with your extremely simplistic responds.

 

What do you do when the organic life you are suppose to protect continually creates a self destructive cycle that effects not only them but all developed or developing life in the galaxy killing it off?

 

I await your simplistic responds to this.

[Eryri]

 
I'm on the same boat with you, though, that the Reapers were perfectly fine when they were just collecting organics to build more Reapers. Made much more sense. (In the first game, I thought they collected and repurposed their technology to upgrade themselves or something, which would explain why the galaxy is always wiped clean, as well, and why the organics have to develop technologically first.)

I thought so too. The idea of assimilating novel technology was actually a good explanation for why the Reapers left the galaxy alone for so long and allowed its species to develop as far as they had. Otherwise, letting galactic scale empires spring up, complete with warships and advanced weaponry, that can make a good stab at fighting back is just making life hard for themselves.

But if their mission is just to grab Organics to 'preserve' them then by rights they should never leave the Galaxy. They should just swoop down and harvest a species as soon as it reaches the steam age. Big enough population to harvest, but not advanced enough to resist. The Catalyst just doesn't fit with the Reapers MO established in ME1.

[Natureguy85]

 (In the first game, I thought they collected and repurposed their technology to upgrade themselves or something, which would explain why the galaxy is always wiped clean, as well, and why the organics have to develop technologically first.)

 

 

I thought so too. The idea of assimilating novel technology was actually a good explanation for why the Reapers left the galaxy alone for so long and allowed its species to develop as far as they had.

 

 

Like this. Hey, maybe the Reapers didn't really create the Mass Relays after all!

[BloodyMares]

It is statements like this that really make me think of a quote from Sovereign.

 

https://youtu.be/JvrIFIjTGt0?t=16s

 

You seem to enjoy attempting to over simplify the problem(s) so you can come up with your extremely simplistic responds.

 

What do you do when the organic life you are suppose to protect continually creates a self destructive cycle that effects not only them but all developed or developing life in the galaxy killing it off?

 

I await your simplistic responds to this.

Oh, wow. Am I touching your mind incapable of understanding? For real? I didn't expect such arrogance.

Why do you avoid answering my question? Am I wrong or am I right? Or you don't have a point at all and argue just for the heck of it? If I'm wrong (about your logic, not about the game) then tell me why is that.

I feel like I'm talking to the Catalyst, really.

And to answer your question: If I have Reapers in my disposal why would I attack every species when I can just indoctrinate everyone (from the times when they are still primitive)? If the galactic society obeys Reaper instructions then it "develops along the paths we desire" and will never think about creating synthetics. Am I violating their freedoms? Yes. But are they preserved? Yes. Then my goal is achieved.