3597 réponses à ce sujet

[Reorte]

Going back a few posts I do get annoyed when people start tossing out words such as "toxic" and "negativity". They're really just a means of trying to dismiss someone else's opinion. If you don't like that atmosphere (and who does?) then look to the cause of it, don't try to tell people there's something wrong with them for being annoyed by something. If you must have something positive (despite negative posts and opinions being just as valid) then whatever I think of the single player I've got more than my money's worth out of the multiplayer.

[gothpunkboy89]

You've missed the point of my post, so I'll leave this be.

 

No you tried to ignore it and bypass it.

 

Drama? Sure. Nothing against drama as long as it's not made shallow and stupid. Contrivances? When they break suspension of disbelief, absolutely not. I agree that every piece of fiction is probably a little contrived - e.g. the hero survives several unlikely life-threatening situations. However, it's another thing entirely when the contrivance is so messy that you don't understand e.g. why your character acts so stupid or e.g. you get a device like the Crucible (which I already explained earlier).

 

But you do understand why you get a device like the Crucible and why Shepard decides to employ it. Because they can not win by conventional means. While the discovery of it is eye rolling convenient. The Protheans would have fought against the Reapers already and any weakness they might have found or way to beat them but to late to save themselves.  It is already made aware even without Javik that the Protheans were studying Humans while they were still living in caves. Leaving the plans on an abandoned out post that the Reapers ignored due to how primitive man was. Makes sense as does leaving the critical information with the Asari. The race the Protheans were grooming to join them and later to be the ones to stop the Reapers.

 

No, you don't. I'm not going to talk about unrelated media that have nothing to do with Mass Effect. Although actually... recently Marvel pulled an awful move with making Captain America a nazi all along for some edgy plot twist. Captain America who punched Hitler on the cover of his very own comic book, somebody who's stood for the good fight. It is tasteless. (And of course, it made the fandom that loves Captain America for being the good guy explode. Hell, CHRIS EVANS that plays the role of Captain America in the movies, somebody who's embodied the character for quite some time, who's had to learn to be in Captain's head, expressed is disgust at this.) That's what I felt like when finishing ME3. But, you know, what? It'd be easier to swallow if everything around it wasn't such a mess.

 

 

Yes I'm going to talk about other unrelated media that is extremely popular to show case just because a story has something in it doesn't mean it is automatically bad. The continual complaint about the writing and story telling with this game is contrivances and drama for sake of drama as examples. Yet the popularity of Marvel movies show that simply having those exist doesn't automatically make it bad. Even though that is the over all theme many are attempting to push. If you are a fan of the Marvel movies and then complain about many of the story elements in ME then you are a hypocrite. This would be obvious for anyone that paid attention to anything and are not simply complaining to complain.

 

And you actually think that is a good thing???

 

Again more to highlight how popular a movie series is that has the same faults as ME games do. Which no one complains about. Because if they were held to the same light as ME is apparently they would be box office bombs the likes of John Carter.

 

Has nothing to do with anything I have said and I have never seen this argument made. I think Tali is perfectly fine in that part and I've mostly heard praise about that mission. Rightfully so. It is well made. By that comment I was addressing the post above and not BioWare, so that comment is born of misunderstanding and I will leave it be.

 

And yet I have seen people complain about that. As well as many other things that they overly simply to try and make themselves correct and BioWare wrong. Like the Beam Run part were everyone is so sure BioWare did the stupidest thing because reasons they pull out of a hat.

 

I guess you missed the part of the story when a sapient machine communicates to creatures it apparently recognises as sapient as well that "You will end because we demand it," and the fact that they're planning to annihilate all advanced species.
 
Either way, does it matter? I think the fact we're discussing this is a good thing because we're discussing what happens in the game and related matters, not complaining about the writing any more. This has nothing to do with ranting or wanting to chance things. When we're musing about the nature of the Reapers and other things, that's definitely positive, don't you think? We've actually done a lot of that in this very thread. Thinking that the Reapers are evil or whatever isn't a complaint. Discussing whether or not it is bad that they're killing organics and whether or not they're doing them a favour is also not complaining. It's pondering about the information we've been given. As far as I'm concerned, that's great.

 

And yet we pull that same stuff time and time again. Been a while but the comparison between what the Reapers do and what we do with cattle is extremely similar. Seriously ever heard of hunting? Sapient animal who will be ended because we demand it. This shows an almost mind numbing arrogance of advanced life. And I have no idea if they intended to put that theme into the game but if they did my respect for them only grows.

 

The article directly calls them malevolent villains. That same article is what a few people keep referencing. The entire topic of that article is about how could Shepard trust the Catalyst. Treating the Catalyst and Reapers by extension like some mustache twirling Snidely Whiplash villain. That is blatant ignoring of the entire set up of the Reapers and the Catalyst. Simply so they could call it stupid that Shepard would talk to it or believe it. And I repeat that sort of over simplification of the even just vaguely complex reasons for the Reaper's and Catalyst's actions are used by people on this forum as some go to source for things that are wrong with this game.  My statements are pretty validated.

 

Except that nowhere in the game are synthetics presented as unbeatable or a problem that threatens the entire galaxy. The only actual synthetic threat are the Reapers that are also revealed to be the ones responsible behind the geth on Eden Prime and other aggressive geth. No matter how you solve Rannoch, it always shows you that either 1) geth are willing to cooperate and make up with the quarians, 2) are beatable, or 3) are willing to cooperate with all the other organics that don't threaten their existence. You will excuse me then that I struggle to believe the Catalyst.

 

They are shown to be unbeatable how ever BioWare tones it down to allow the story to continue. With the exception of EDI who is allowed to display all the abilities a fully formed AI would have because it is in service to advancing the plot. Everything EDI can do the Geth could do. Everything the Geth and EDI could do the Reapers could do even better.

 

Yes Sovereign set the Geth under Saren's command but they still carried out the attacks using only their own capability. Over whelming planetary defenses and decimating the Citadel's Fleets With that being only a small portion of over all Geth. Like wise they agree to cooperate with the Quarians because it is needed. They are well aware they are incapable of taking on the Reapers alone. And even Tali post Rannoch admits it is far to early for anyone to call the conflict between them settled.

 

Peace is possible but so is conflict the actions of them forcibly working together to save their own hides does not automatically mean the problem is averted. And the Catalyst out right states all it's attempts eventually ended in conflict. So even making peace doesn't disprove it's statement. Certainly not in the time frame that is shown in game. Show me 300 years into the future were the Geth have been allowed to grow and develop free of inference from any other race and then you can start to throw stones.

 

And that is racist and xenophobic, isn't it? Yet the ending wants me to believe that about all synthetics, despite the fact the game showed us that they can also be allies and friends. You can't set up a significant part of synthetics as quite human and willing to cooperate and then tell me that war with them is inevitable. OF COURSE I'm going to fight that notion because I've found friends among them. Just like I wouldn't turn against an entire real life race just because somebody tells me to. What I find sad is that the game worked really hard to make us understand synthetics, you know? And then the Catalyst just throws them all on the same pile. It doesn't seem unfair to you?

 

Oh it absolutely is but it is the natural reaction for being based entirely around emotions to react when they don't even vaguely understand what is going on. Particularly when the news media which are more interested in views over facts whip up the hysteria simply so they can have more clicks on their web page or bring in more viewers.

 

The game works hard to show that synthetics aren't just stereotype evil things that hate organics simply because they are organic. But the Geth have followed the Catalysts predictions fairly well. They did rise up against their creators and nearly killed them. They took the path of extreme isolation killing even the diplomats sent to negotiate with them. Giving them reason to do so beyond simply because they are organic was great. But does not change a thing. If the Geth feel like another race is standing in their way of development and growth the Geth will not hesitate to remove that block.

 

Of course. The Council also forbid the creation of organic sapient species because of ethical reasons. Synthetic life, as Mass Effect knows it, is a complicated issue. With geth we've seen how thin the line between having servants and having slaves is.

 

This has nothing to do with creation of organic sapient species. By Council Law the research and development of AI or related fields is highly restricted and controlled. Only a handful of companies are allowed to legally do this research. The creation of AI's is already well established how to do it by the point the first game picks up. Which means any AI's that are created are severely limited both in what they are allowed to do and in their own growth. This is one of the very reasons why the Geth rebelled against the Quarians.

 

These subtle nuances being ignored is why we're angry, though.

 

But they weren't ignored by BioWare. How ever players seem to be ignoring what BioWare did. Some cases not a lot some cases pretty hard.

[Vanilka]

Not really. They can give you the power to destroy them, and make it look like a really bad choice (death of EDI, Geth, etc), and so people don't choose it. Had there been no strings attached, then everyone would want to destroy the Reapers. 
 
Controlling the Reapers has always been sort of a no-no, as we saw from the Illusive Man. 
 
Some people just feel sorry for the Reapers, because they are prisoners to their creator, so they don't destroy them.
 
I personally destroy them every time.

Yeah, but they'd still include a self-destruct button which seems curious to me. If they truly believe that the synthetic threat is real (which I don't), shouldn't they try to do everything to keep themselves alive until an appropriate solution (like Synthesis) is chosen? Destroy doesn't really solve their problem, not permanently. However, it does solve mine. Like, even though I care about the geth and EDI a great deal, I still choose Destroy. Making Destroy less appealing by holding geth and EDI hostage seems to be the writer's decision, not the Reapers', in my opinion. How does killing themselves benefit the Reapers?
 

You have this.

What's that? Where did it come from?

[Vanilka]

No you tried to ignore it and bypass it.

Right, because you know better what I meant than I do. See, Prince E? This is exactly what I was talking about. You're expected to be polite when somebody constantly talks down to you, ignores what you say and proceeds to put words in your mouth. I'm trying but, hell, I'm just a human being.
 

But you do understand why you get a device like the Crucible and why Shepard decides to employ it. Because they can not win by conventional means. While the discovery of it is eye rolling convenient....

There, you said it, too. That's my point, as well. Glad we can agree on something.
 

Do you even know the context of those pictures that you use them as an argument?

 

Yes I'm going to talk about other unrelated media that is extremely popular to show case just because a story has something in it doesn't mean it is automatically bad. The continual complaint about the writing and story telling with this game is contrivances and drama for sake of drama as examples. Yet the popularity of Marvel movies show that simply having those exist doesn't automatically make it bad. Even though that is the over all theme many are attempting to push. If you are a fan of the Marvel movies and then complain about many of the story elements in ME then you are a hypocrite. This would be obvious for anyone that paid attention to anything and are not simply complaining to complain.

Except that pulling Marvel into it has no point to it. Especially because these pieces of media handle their stories differently and while they may have contrivances, the extent varies. You can have a story that is a bit silly and then have a story that is extremely silly and it doesn't make them the same just because they both contain silliness in various degrees. And there's no point in having this particular piece of discussion, either.
 

Again more to highlight how popular a movie series is that has the same faults as ME games do.

Same. Sure.
 

And yet I have seen people complain about that. As well as many other things that they overly simply to try and make themselves correct and BioWare wrong. Like the Beam Run part were everyone is so sure BioWare did the stupidest thing because reasons they pull out of a hat.

Because that part is stupid for reasons many have stated. You're running right into a Reaper's face, with no cover, no attempt to call reinforcements, develop strategy, etc. Look how successful all these marines are. Shepard doesn't get hit just because she has plot armour. Until the story requires her to get hit anyway.



Around 2:33 you can even see fighters flying right into the Reaper's face. Because that makes sense. Hilarious. But, yeah, I'm pulling that out of my hat.
 

1) And yet we pull that same stuff time and time again. Been a while but the comparison between what the Reapers do and what we do with cattle is extremely similar. Seriously ever heard of hunting? Sapient animal who will be ended because we demand it. This shows an almost mind numbing arrogance of advanced life. And I have no idea if they intended to put that theme into the game but if they did my respect for them only grows.

2) The article directly calls them malevolent villains. That same article is what a few people keep referencing. The entire topic of that article is about how could Shepard trust the Catalyst. Treating the Catalyst and Reapers by extension like some mustache twirling Snidely Whiplash villain. That is blatant ignoring of the entire set up of the Reapers and the Catalyst. Simply so they could call it stupid that Shepard would talk to it or believe it. And I repeat that sort of over simplification of the even just vaguely complex reasons for the Reaper's and Catalyst's actions are used by people on this forum as some go to source for things that are wrong with this game.  My statements are pretty validated.

1) And yet you recycle the same arguments. I again have to state that we 1) don't kill cattle just for the sake of killing it, 2) when we kill cattle, we don't wipe it all out off the face of Earth completely. I refuse to argue about this any further. We've been through this already and I believe you have with other people in other threads, as well.

2) I like how you pat yourself on your back. Meh. Anyway, Ieldra has written quite a lot in this thread about the way the Reapers are portrayed (design of the Reaper mutants, methods, writing, etc.) and made some great points. They stand for death, destruction, terror. That's what you see most of the game. I don't know who's ignoring what here.
 

1) They are shown to be unbeatable how ever BioWare tones it down to allow the story to continue. With the exception of EDI who is allowed to display all the abilities a fully formed AI would have because it is in service to advancing the plot. Everything EDI can do the Geth could do. Everything the Geth and EDI could do the Reapers could do even better.

2) Yes Sovereign set the Geth under Saren's command but they still carried out the attacks using only their own capability. Over whelming planetary defenses and decimating the Citadel's Fleets With that being only a small portion of over all Geth. Like wise they agree to cooperate with the Quarians because it is needed. They are well aware they are incapable of taking on the Reapers alone. And even Tali post Rannoch admits it is far to early for anyone to call the conflict between them settled.

1) Give me a single example where the synthetics have proven to be unbeatable that doesn't consist of "Well, The Catalyst/Leviathan said..." Because I sure have seen none in my games.

2) Funny thing how synthetics are so convenient for the Reapers to kill organics in ME1, huh? Which is what they claim they try to prevent in the end. Same thing on Rannoch. They're empowering the struggling synthetics to kill organics instead of letting organics handle it. Well, aren't they a little schizophrenic, lol.
 

1) Peace is possible but so is conflict the actions of them forcibly working together to save their own hides does not automatically mean the problem is averted. And the Catalyst out right states all it's attempts eventually ended in conflict. So even making peace doesn't disprove it's statement. Certainly not in the time frame that is shown in game. Show me 300 years into the future were the Geth have been allowed to grow and develop free of inference from any other race and then you can start to throw stones.

2)The game works hard to show that synthetics aren't just stereotype evil things that hate organics simply because they are organic. But the Geth have followed the Catalysts predictions fairly well. They did rise up against their creators and nearly killed them. They took the path of extreme isolation killing even the diplomats sent to negotiate with them. Giving them reason to do so beyond simply because they are organic was great. But does not change a thing. If the Geth feel like another race is standing in their way of development and growth the Geth will not hesitate to remove that block.

1) And? "But somebody said so!" is not an argument. Some random character that the writer pulled out of his ass out of desperation in the last moment before the deadline says something and I'm supposed to believe that, even though the entire franchise shows otherwise. Yeah, sorry, no, I don't buy it. YOU show me 300 years into the future and prove you're right. See, I can make that argument, too.

2) They rose against people who wanted to kill them. They were willing to cooperate before they were attacked. Heretics led by the Reapers killed people on ships that tried to explore geth space. We're basically shown that all violence by geth is actually led by Reapers or self-defence.
 

1) This has nothing to do with creation of organic sapient species. By Council Law the research and development of AI or related fields is highly restricted and controlled. Only a handful of companies are allowed to legally do this research. The creation of AI's is already well established how to do it by the point the first game picks up. Which means any AI's that are created are severely limited both in what they are allowed to do and in their own growth. This is one of the very reasons why the Geth rebelled against the Quarians.

2) But they weren't ignored by BioWare. How ever players seem to be ignoring what BioWare did. Some cases not a lot some cases pretty hard.

1) I never said it had something to do with it. What I said is that the Council established restrictions upon the creation of new life. The geth didn't rebel because of some restrictions. It may have been one of the reasons why the quarians attacked them, however, and why the geth were forced to defend themselves.

2) Right. "I'm right and you're wrong," and all that jazz. As always.
 
 
Look at this damn post. All over the place and has almost next to nothing to do with my original post. Again.

[gothpunkboy89]

.
 

Do you even know the context of those pictures that you use them as an argument?

[AlanC9]

Not really. They can give you the power to destroy them, and make it look like a really bad choice (death of EDI, Geth, etc), and so people don't choose it. Had there been no strings attached, then everyone would want to destroy the Reapers. 

As Vanilka pointed out, this is a crazy risk to run. It's also a really silly set of strings to attach, which is maybe understandable if the geth are still around since the Reapers don't seem to have a great understanding of organic psychology in the first place. But if the geth have already been destroyed, it's just stupid.

[Vanilka]

 

Nice try. But attacking the readers/poster instead of the argument made is exactly that. I'll give you 1/10 for that attempt. You did bother answering at least and it's a nice meme.

[gothpunkboy89]

Nice try. But attacking the readers/poster instead of the argument made is exactly that. I'll give you 1/10 for that attempt. You did bother answering, at least, and it's a nice meme.

 

Basically the picture was there to highlight the fact comics have pulled this kind of stuff time and time again. It will turn out to be a clone, brain washing or something and Capt will be back to how he was before once the story runs it's course. People getting upset over it are being upset for no reason. The picture was there to again highlight that fact that rather then get all rage induced to watch what happens and see what happens.

 

You claim it was ad homienm even though it wasn't. Hence my reply.

Modifié par gothpunkboy89, 04 juin 2016 - 10:42 .

[AlanC9]

To be fair, my definition of terrorism has more to do with the targets themselves. If it's a civilian target attacked by a suicide bomber, then definitely terrorism. If it's a military target, I think it's more gray, but that might just be a product of the time in which we live. I don't remember if Reagan called the bombings in Beirut terrorism, but I could easily make an argument that it was, despite it being a military target.

Yeah, I think it has to be about the targets. Keep the "terror" in "terrorism," so to speak. If it's just about the way people are fighting, it's not a morally or intellectually coherent term anymore; how come it's "terrorism" to drive a truck bomb into a barracks but it's not "terrorism" if you push a button and send a cruise missile to do the same job?

[Vanilka]

Basically the picture was there to highlight the fact comics have pulled this kind of stuff time and time again. It will turn out to be a clone, brain washing or something and Capt will be back to how he was before once the story runs it's course. People getting upset over it are being upset for no reason. The picture was there to again highlight that fact that rather then get all rage induced to watch what happens and see what happens.

 

You claim it was ad homienm even though it wasn't. Hence my reply.

 

Another nice try, but it still targets people, disregarding reasons for their opinions or content of their complaints. But I understand how it's so much easier to do that than address what they say. Ah well.

 

I also like how you say that comics do this all the time because it's not like that makes it such a tired and overused trope that everybody can it see coming from a mile away or anything. But this thread is not about that. Yet again you have taken something minor out of a post to argue about it when it has nothing to do with this thread.

[Reorte]

Yeah, I think it has to be about the targets. Keep the "terror" in "terrorism," so to speak. If it's just about the way people are fighting, it's not a morally or intellectually coherent term anymore; how come it's "terrorism" to drive a truck bomb into a barracks but it's not "terrorism" if you push a button and send a cruise missile to do the same job?

I think I'd call it terrorism if an attack has no purpose beyond the attack itself; it isn't trying to by a means to directly achieve any other objective.

[Iakus]

Basically the picture was there to highlight the fact comics have pulled this kind of stuff time and time again. It will turn out to be a clone, brain washing or something and Capt will be back to how he was before once the story runs it's course. People getting upset over it are being upset for no reason. The picture was there to again highlight that fact that rather then get all rage induced to watch what happens and see what happens.

 

You claim it was ad homienm even though it wasn't. Hence my reply.

Nope.  Marvel has said that is was Steve Rogers and no mind control was involved.  He was acting of his own accord.  

 

Now how, or if things get reset, we do not know (It's been nearly a decade since One More Day, and that abomination has yet to be fixed, after all)

 

We now return you to your regularly scheduled Mass Effect debate already in progress.

[gothpunkboy89]

Another nice try, but it still targets people disregarding reasons for their opinions or content of their complaints. But I understand how it's so much easier to do that than address what they say. Ah well.

 

I also like how you say that comics do this all the time because it's not like that makes it such a tired and overused trope that everybody can it see coming from a mile away or anything. But this thread is not about that. Yet again you have taken something minor out of a post to argue about it when it has nothing to do with this thread.

 

I brought up theatrical theme similarities between the game and two movies. You brought up people raging over Capt becoming a Nazi....again.  When I post a funny picture showing how people have changed from waiting to see what happens to instantly raging about it. You claim I was attacking you and not your argument.  When I wasn't attacking you but your statement.

[gothpunkboy89]

Nope.  Marvel has said that is was Steve Rogers and no mind control was involved.  He as acting of his own accord.  

 

Now how, or if things get reset, we do not know (It's been nearly a decade since One More Day, and that abomination has yet to be fixed, after all)

 

We now return you to your regularly scheduled Mass Effect debate already in progress.

 

Things will always get reset eventually. Remember that time the Captain America became Nomad? Remember how he is still Nomad? Oh wait....

[Vanilka]

I brought up theatrical theme similarities between the game and two movies. You brought up people raging over Capt becoming a Nazi....again.  When I post a funny picture showing how people have changed from waiting to see what happens to instantly raging about it. You claim I was attacking you and not your argument.  When I wasn't attacking you but your statement.

 

Comparison I already told you was pointless and out of place. And I already explained the rest. I believe explaining twice should be enough.

[gothpunkboy89]

Right, because you know better what I meant than I do. See, Prince E? This is exactly what I was talking about. You're expected to be polite when somebody constantly talks down to you, ignores what you say and proceeds to put words in your mouth. I'm trying but, hell, I'm just a human being.

 

That certainly is the way it comes off. Remember just because you know what you are doing doesn't mean everyone will always know what you are doing.

 

There, you said it, too. That's my point, as well. Glad we can agree on something.

 

I never denied this fact. I just don't find it to be detrimental to the over all story. The Reapers are set up as such an over whelming force this sort of thing is expected to happen.

 

Except that pulling Marvel into it has no point to it. Especially because these pieces of media handle their stories differently and while they may have contrivances, the extent varies. You can have a story that is a bit silly and then have a story that is extremely silly and it doesn't make them the same just because they both contain silliness in various degrees. And there's no point in having this particular piece of discussion, either.

 

But it does when again the main complaint against the ME story is players complaining about contrivances and drama for sake of drama. Using them as reasons why the story or over all writing is bad simply because it exists.  Hence the pulling in of extremely popular movie series which have the exact same set ups as ME story and yet are extremely popular with almost no one complaining about the stories.

 

Because that part is stupid for reasons many have stated. You're running right into a Reaper's face, with no cover, no attempt to call reinforcements, develop strategy, etc. Look how successful all these marines are. Shepard doesn't get hit just because she has plot armour. Until the story requires her to get hit anyway.

 

-Beam can blast though kinetic barriers of war ships as well as layers of armor.

 

Claims hiding under concrete would protect them.

 

-Reinforcements would take time to arrive allowing Harbinger to blast what forces are there as well as call on more Reapers to assist. As well as all Reaper ground forces now aware of your position and converging on it.

 

Claims reinforcements would have helped.

 

-Open ground with minimal cover, assault rifles and grenades against a Reaper capable of taking direct hits from 4 Dreadnought's main gun and still survive. As well as being completely surrounded by Reaper ground forces who now aware of were the attack is coming from is converging on their position.

 

Claims strategy would make a difference.

 

-Airships fly at Harbinger hoping to draw it's attention and fire to allow ground forces to get to the beam even at the cost of their life

 

Claims they are being stupid for flying right at their face.

 

 

I don't want to say you are pulling it out of your hat. But if the hat fits wear it.

 

1) And yet you recycle the same arguments. I again have to state that we 1) don't kill cattle just for the sake of killing it, 2) when we kill cattle, we don't wipe it all out off the face of Earth completely. I refuse to argue about this any further. We've been through this already and I believe you have with other people in other threads, as well.

 

No we just have hunting preserved were the animals are fenced in so people can shoot it. We have dentists that pay a couple thousand dollars to shoot a lion simply so they can say they did. And yet Reapers don't wipe all organic life out of the galaxy either. To them each race is much like an individual cow. Kill one and more spring up after it.

 

2) I like how you pat yourself on your back. Meh. Anyway, Ieldra has written quite a lot in this thread about the way the Reapers are portrayed (design of the Reaper mutants, methods, writing, etc.) and made some great points. They stand for death, destruction, terror. That's what you see most of the game. I don't know who's ignoring what here.

 

How best to go about this here. The design of the Reapers, actions and writing do not portray them standing for death, destruction and terror. Well I will concede Reaper troops are very much set up for terror simply because it is the most effective to demoralize armies. But it is very funny how beings designed and written for death and destruction some how manages to keep the galaxy with enough bio diversity that for untold number of cycles life continues to grow and thrive. Some death and destruction. I give them a D for effort.

 

1) Give me a single example where the synthetics have proven to be unbeatable that doesn't consist of "Well, The Catalyst/Leviathan said..." Because I sure have seen none in my games.

 

Remember that time that that a small percentage of Geth managed to curb stomp the Citadel Fleet and were only truely stopped off screen by an unspecified way that we are in no way shape or form shown how they are capable of doing it. Remember all those time EDI was capable of hacking into any system needed to allow Shepard to do what ever it is he needed to do? Or more specifically remember all those times EDI is capable of taking on the Collectors who are created by Reaper technology which is centuries more advanced then current tech and is capable of matching it. Remember when Legion was capable of accessing the dead Reaper's data in order to find a way to prevent the Heretics's code from infecting the rest of the Geth. Remember how those abilities never show up again unless it is in service to advance the plot?

 

 

2) Funny thing how synthetics are so convenient for the Reapers to kill organics in ME1, huh? Which is what they claim they try to prevent in the end. Same thing on Rannoch. They're empowering the struggling synthetics to kill organics instead of letting organics handle it. Well, aren't they a little schizophrenic, lol.

 

They use synthetics the exact same why they use organics. As tools to break the resistance so they can harvest all advanced organic and synthetic races. There is no empowering involved. Sovereign needed an army to achieve it's goal but couldn't subjugate the entire Geth alone. Made a deal and got some support. Cut to ME 3 were the harvest is full on the Reapers are everywhere the use of the Geth would be much more effective then husks or Marauders for the purpose of wiping out the armies of the galaxy. At the end of it how ever the Geth would be harvested the same as everyone else.  Not really empowering anything.

 

1) And? "But somebody said so!" is not an argument. Some random character that the writer pulled out of his ass out of desperation in the last moment before the deadline says something and I'm supposed to believe that, even though the entire franchise shows otherwise. Yeah, sorry, no, I don't buy it. YOU show me 300 years into the future and prove you're right. See, I can make that argument, too.

 

But the entire franchise doesn't say it is different. Oh certainly they ton down the synthetics hate organic that they had going on in the first game. They give the Geth and EDI a little bit of depth and dimension. But that isn't the same as the entire trilogy showing conflict isn't going to happen. The entire set up of the Geth is they want to grow and develop on their own with no one else dictating that growth and development. The very set up of the Council is the exact opposite. They dictate the growth and development of different races. That is why they dictate what is allowed to be researched, what race gets what planet, how many war ships you can have. Everything the Geth are against.

 

2) They rose against people who wanted to kill them. They were willing to cooperate before they were attacked. Heretics led by the Reapers killed people on ships that tried to explore geth space. We're basically shown that all violence by geth is actually led by Reapers or self-defence.

 

Geth don't really die. The actions of the Quarians were directly compromising their growth more then their existence. Even if the Quarains were successful in their endeavors the Geth would still exist just reduced to their dumb down VI form. The Geth eventually rose up against the Quarians to prevent that. It wasn't Heretic lead Geth that killed people. The Council right after the Morning War sent representatives to the Geth to negotiate peace and the Geth just out right killed them. Sovereign only comes into play 300 years later.  Up to that point organic ships were still target practice.

 

1) I never said it had something to do with it. What I said is that the Council established restrictions upon the creation of new life. The geth didn't rebel because of some restrictions. It may have been one of the reasons why the quarians attacked them, however, and why the geth were forced to defend themselves.

 

And if those AI's find some way to get out of control of the researchers what do you think their over all feeling for them would be? Create a child and keep it locked in a clear box while you poke and prod it over and over again. it will not develop love for you. This is perfect brewing ground for conflict between synthetic and organic.

 

Look at this damn post. All over the place and has almost next to nothing to do with my original post. Again.

 

Disagree.

[rossler]

What's that? Where did it come from?

One of the lines during the Illusive Man conversation.

[Vanilka]

That certainly is the way it comes off. Remember just because you know what you are doing doesn't mean everyone will always know what you are doing.

 

 

I never denied this fact. I just don't find it to be detrimental to the over all story. The Reapers are set up as such an over whelming force this sort of thing is expected to happen.

Then that's your very subjective opinion. You can see many others feel differently. I, for one, prefer when stuff is properly set up.
 

But it does when again the main complaint against the ME story is players complaining about contrivances and drama for sake of drama. Using them as reasons why the story or over all writing is bad simply because it exists.  Hence the pulling in of extremely popular movie series which have the exact same set ups as ME story and yet are extremely popular with almost no one complaining about the stories.

 
I have already explained this. I have already explained how it is unrelated to ME. It doesn't add anything to the discussion and I'm dropping this.
 

-Beam can blast though kinetic barriers of war ships as well as layers of armor.
 
Claims hiding under concrete would protect them.
 
-Reinforcements would take time to arrive allowing Harbinger to blast what forces are there as well as call on more Reapers to assist. As well as all Reaper ground forces now aware of your position and converging on it.
 
Claims reinforcements would have helped.
 
-Open ground with minimal cover, assault rifles and grenades against a Reaper capable of taking direct hits from 4 Dreadnought's main gun and still survive. As well as being completely surrounded by Reaper ground forces who now aware of were the attack is coming from is converging on their position.
 
Claims strategy would make a difference.
 
-Airships fly at Harbinger hoping to draw it's attention and fire to allow ground forces to get to the beam even at the cost of their life
 
Claims they are being stupid for flying right at their face.
 
 
I don't want to say you are pulling it out of your hat. But if the hat fits wear it.

So instead of trying to figure out SOMETHING, ANYTHING, we've got absolutely nothing and do something that's complete suicide. After all, even Shepard does get hit and it's only by chance (plot armour) that she actually makes it. Great plan. You can even see there are fighters flying around - so much about reinforcements taking time - but instead of trying to draw the Reaper's attention (e.g. from behind), they fly right into the beam like morons.

Look, if you like to get your ass shot for sure without using your head first in any way, then feel free to do so, but I don't. Seems like you prefer to figure out reasons why something can't be done, instead of how it can be done. It doesn't work that way for me.
 

No we just have hunting preserved were the animals are fenced in so people can shoot it. We have dentists that pay a couple thousand dollars to shoot a lion simply so they can say they did. And yet Reapers don't wipe all organic life out of the galaxy either. To them each race is much like an individual cow. Kill one and more spring up after it.

What does it have do to with cattle? Plus, even in the other cases our goal is not to wipe out all members of a species, unlike the Reapers'. Also, please don't make analogies. This one doesn't work, either.
 

How best to go about this here. The design of the Reapers, actions and writing do not portray them standing for death, destruction and terror. Well I will concede Reaper troops are very much set up for terror simply because it is the most effective to demoralize armies. But it is very funny how beings designed and written for death and destruction some how manages to keep the galaxy with enough bio diversity that for untold number of cycles life continues to grow and thrive. Some death and destruction. I give them a D for effort.

I know, right? At the end of the Dead Space trilogy I will probably learn that the necromorphs have actually been the good guys all along! Plot twist!
 

Spoiler

 



 
Such good guys. Their design or aggressive behaviour doesn't mean anything, of course. We shouldn't judge a book by its cover, after all.

(Dear gods, if Dead Space 3 pulls Mass Effect 3 on me, I might develop trust issues towards video game trilogies.)

 

1) Remember that time that that a small percentage of Geth managed to curb stomp the Citadel Fleet and were only truely stopped off screen by an unspecified way that we are in no way shape or form shown how they are capable of doing it.
 
2) Remember all those time EDI was capable of hacking into any system needed to allow Shepard to do what ever it is he needed to do? Or more specifically remember all those times EDI is capable of taking on the Collectors who are created by Reaper technology which is centuries more advanced then current tech and is capable of matching it.
 
3) Remember when Legion was capable of accessing the dead Reaper's data in order to find a way to prevent the Heretics's code from infecting the rest of the Geth.

 
1) They were led by the Reapers. Nowhere near an extinction event.
 
2) Not an enemy. Not an extinction event.
 
3) Not an enemy, either. Not an extinction even, either.

 

So, you've got nothing that proves that the synthetics have ever been an actual threat to the galaxy.
 

They use synthetics the exact same why they use organics. As tools to break the resistance so they can harvest all advanced organic and synthetic races. There is no empowering involved. Sovereign needed an army to achieve it's goal but couldn't subjugate the entire Geth alone. Made a deal and got some support. Cut to ME 3 were the harvest is full on the Reapers are everywhere the use of the Geth would be much more effective then husks or Marauders for the purpose of wiping out the armies of the galaxy. At the end of it how ever the Geth would be harvested the same as everyone else.  Not really empowering anything.

Each time they were not harvesting. They were just killing. They were killing organics with synthetics.
 

But the entire franchise doesn't say it is different. Oh certainly they ton down the synthetics hate organic that they had going on in the first game. They give the Geth and EDI a little bit of depth and dimension. But that isn't the same as the entire trilogy showing conflict isn't going to happen. The entire set up of the Geth is they want to grow and develop on their own with no one else dictating that growth and development. The very set up of the Council is the exact opposite. They dictate the growth and development of different races. That is why they dictate what is allowed to be researched, what race gets what planet, how many war ships you can have. Everything the Geth are against.

The geth aren't even part of the Council space. The whole point Legion made in ME2 is that they just wanted to be left alone. The franchise doesn't only say it's different, it shows it. It gives multiple examples. Even the very rare synthetics that are actually aggressive have always been beatable and they have always been beaten. Including the Reapers that are the most advanced synthetics Milky Way has ever seen.
  

1) Geth don't really die. The actions of the Quarians were directly compromising their growth more then their existence. Even if the Quarains were successful in their endeavors the Geth would still exist just reduced to their dumb down VI form. The Geth eventually rose up against the Quarians to prevent that. It wasn't Heretic lead Geth that killed people. The Council right after the Morning War sent representatives to the Geth to negotiate peace and the Geth just out right killed them. Sovereign only comes into play 300 years later.  Up to that point organic ships were still target practice.
 
2) And if those AI's find some way to get out of control of the researchers what do you think their over all feeling for them would be? Create a child and keep it locked in a clear box while you poke and prod it over and over again. it will not develop love for you. This is perfect brewing ground for conflict between synthetic and organic.
 
3) Disagree.

 
1) They wanted to shut them down. Which means the geth would cease to exist. Call it what you will, it doesn't change that fact. They didn't want to become non-functional. They didn't want to lose sentience. I have no idea where you figured out the Council sent representatives to geth space. First time I'm hearing this.

2) All you have is what-if arguments. Neither evidence, nor proof.
 
3) Reread my original post.

[Natureguy85]

Someone needs to come up with an alternate continuation of Mass Effect from Mass Effect 1 onwards to justify there endless complaints, over analysing, nitpicking, toxic forum dumping and just endless spewing of negativity on a Mass Effect forum.

General consensus on tho thread is, ME2 and ME3 were awful. ME1 was great. Drew Karpyshyn for the win.

Then come up with a solution to the latter two's problems, instead of, after all these years, just pointing and naysaying and not providing a resolution.

There is a difference I think in complaining about bad writing and stories, but to still do so all these years later and not come up with a solution to the problems? Just endlessly peg Bioware with insults, not matter how justified you feel they may be?

This is not a productive discussion, its just endless negativity. That retrospective that has been touted on here is proof you pick apart any story, especially one in video games, it isn't going to be as shiny perfect as initial expectations.

Instead of the same opinions on Mass Effect being endlessly recycled, perhaps this thread can become a bit more positive or productive, and instead discuss ways that the problems in writing could have been changed?

That, or a mod just locks this soul crushing thread asap.

Ridiculous. First off, we and others have thrown out plenty of ideas for improvement with varied degrees of specificity.

Second, critics of anything are consumers of that thing, not always creators, though some may be both. A food critic may not be a chef but they eat a lot of food. A movie critic watches movies but doesn't make them. The guy reviewing a car in a driving magazine drives cars but doesn't make them.

What the hell are you contributing? Now you're just whining about what you perceive as whining and it's telling that, like your bedfellow gothpunkboy, you can't substantively argue against the criticism. If this thread is so soul crushing, don't go on it. It's magic how that works.

[KrrKs]

I have no idea where you figured out the Council sent representatives to geth space. First time I'm hearing this.

I think Tali mentions this in ME1, not sure. Certain planet descriptions (like e.g., the Haestrom one) can also be interpreted that way.

 

I actually agree with Gothpunkboy, in that the Crucible (or a similar) plot device/ superweapon was something I expected after ME2. Therefore I didn't think it was a completely bad Idea (compared to some of the alternatives I imagined) -at least it was introduced within the first few minutes of the Story*. I just hoped it would be connected to the Collector base somehow.

 

*Instead of e.g., introducing something as important in the last 10 minutes. Oh well ...

 

Anyway: Cudos to you, BloodyMares and everyone else actually taking the time to read (and reply to!) all of that.

 

Edit: I should proofread these earlier...

Modifié par KrrKs, 05 juin 2016 - 04:13 .

[BloodyMares]

I'll probably regret it later but don't you think that the argument about whether or not you should believe the Catalyst is the same as whether or not you should believe in God? I recently watched Richard Dawkins' lecture about religion and he made an amazing example of a fallacy that some theists use in their arguments.
Here it is:

 

1) We have Theory A and Theory B
2) Theory A is supported by lots of evidence
3) Theory B is supported by no evidence at all
4) I can't understand how Theory A explains X
5) Therefore Theory B must be right

(Ignoring the question of whether Theory B can explain X, and ignoring the fact that Theory B has no positive evidence in its favour anyway)

Does it look similar? If not, I'll explain.

1) Suppose Theory A is a conclusion that the conflict between organics and synthetics does not necessarily exist and Theory B is Catalyst's claim of the opposite. 
2) Conclusion that the Catalyst is wrong is based on multiple examples that all three games provide (Evidence that synthetics are beatable ME1, evidence that synthetics are not always hostile in ME2, EDI's character evolution and resolution of the Geth-Quarian war in ME3).
3) Catalyst's claim is supported by no evidence at all and is an argument simply coming from authority.
4) Gothpunkboy and several others don't see how Theory A (Catalyst is wrong/should not be trusted) explains X (Is there a conflict between organics and synthetics resulting in organics' demise?)
5) Therefore they think that the Catalyst is right/should be trusted, ignoring the question of whether the Catalyst's claim can explain X, and ignoring the fact that Catalyst's claim still has no positive evidence in its favour anyway.

Well, that's how I see it anyway.

[Vanilka]

I think Tali mentions this in ME1, not so sure atm. Certain Planet descriptions (like e.g., the Haestrom one) can also be interpreted that way.

 

I actually agree with Gothpunkboy, that the Crucible (or similar) plot device/ superweapon was something I expected after ME2. Therefore I didn't think it was a completely bad introduction -at least it was introduced within the first few minutes of the Story*. I just hoped it would be connected to the Collector base somehow.

 

*Instead of e.g., introducing a something as important in the last 10 minutes. Oh well ...

 

Anyway: Cudos to you, BloodyMares and everyone else actually taking the time to read (and reply to!) all of that.

 

Yeah, I have no idea. I'm open to new information; it's just that I don't remember that sort of thing. I checked the wiki before I posted, too, and the timeline doesn't mention anything, at least. Which doesn't mean the information can't be somewhere else. Makes you wonder whether anybody would actually negotiate with AIs, though, given the widespread belief that they're dangerous. Particularly after the quarians got nearly wiped out. The games gave me feeling that everybody mostly noped out of there. (I could be wrong.)

 

You know, I'm fine having different opinions about that. I might not feel exactly the same, but I don't think that invalidates your or his opinion. I just don't like when somebody treats me or others like a tool for not thinking the same things. Sometimes I just want to agree to disagree, say thanks for having a nice discussion and go about my day. I particularly don't like when my posts get dragged out of context and all over the place. Like, my original post mostly named the kinds of things you can learn about the gamers from the posts in this thread and look where it is now and how fragmented and unrelated it is. That's not a productive or pleasant way to have a discussion.

 

Either way, you're making a good point. I don't think the superweapon idea is that bad. I mean, since they set up villains this powerful, I can't see what else they could do, really. My complaints are mostly aimed (as shown in this very thread) at how the plans successfully went through all those cycles with nobody really knowing that much about it. Perhaps about the fact that ME3 starts like, "Oops, I happened to stumble upon this awesome thing just when we needed it! Lucky!" Particularly after Anderson's stating that the Protheans left "a small data cache" on Mars in ME1 and in ME3 it is an archive. I do agree that with the Reapers being powerful the way they are, the writers had little space to manoeuvre and I don't blame them for going that way. And it's a good thing that, while the introduction might have been abrupt, at least we deal with it throughout the whole game. That's something.

[Natureguy85]

Well I have a little theory which goes something like this. Why else would all of these options be giving the Reapers what they want?

Yeah, that could have been a cool way to go, but they didn't.

This is neither here nor there, but I can see the argument for kamikaze pilots being terrorists. The Emporer of Japan was a god-king, so by killing themselves in service to their country, you can more broadly argue that they were killing themselves in service to their god.

To be fair, my definition of terrorism has more to do with the targets themselves. If it's a civilian target attacked by a suicide bomber, then definitely terrorism. If it's a military target, I think it's more gray, but that might just be a product of the time in which we live. I don't remember if Reagan called the bombings in Beirut terrorism, but I could easily make an argument that it was, despite it being a military target.

Anyway, sorry for the tangent.

Terrorism isn't defined by suicide or bombings, though both are often used by terrorists. Terrorists are not member of a regular army involved in a war, as the Japanese were. Terrorism has political and social objectives more than military.

[Natureguy85]

I'll probably regret it later but don't you think that the argument about whether or not you should believe the Catalyst is the same as whether or not you should believe in God? I recently watched Richard Dawkins' lecture about religion and he made an amazing example of a fallacy that some theists use in their arguments.
Here it is:


Does it look similar? If not, I'll explain.

1) Suppose Theory A is a conclusion that the conflict between organics and synthetics does not necessarily exist and Theory B is Catalyst's claim of the opposite.
2) Conclusion that the Catalyst is wrong is based on multiple examples that all three games provide (Evidence that synthetics are beatable ME1, evidence that synthetics are not always hostile in ME2, EDI's character evolution and resolution of the Geth-Quarian war in ME3).
3) Catalyst's claim is supported by no evidence at all and is an argument simply coming from authority.
4) Gothpunkboy and several others don't see how Theory A (Catalyst is wrong/should not be trusted) explains X (Is there a conflict between organics and synthetics?)
5) Therefore they think that the Catalyst is right/should be trusted, ignoring the question of whether the Catalyst's claim can explain X, and ignoring the fact that Catalyst's claim still has no positive evidence in its favour anyway.

Well, that's how I see it anyway.

No, it's not similar because the premise is incorrect, but this isn't the place for that discussion.

As for Mass Effect, it had nothing to do with evidence. GPB and other just accept the argument from authority.

[Vanilka]

Ridiculous. First off, we and others have thrown out plenty of ideas for improvement with varied degrees of specificity.

Second, critics of anything are consumers of that thing, not always creators, though some may be both. A food critic may not be a chef but they eat a lot of food. A movie critic watches movies but doesn't make them. The guy reviewing a car in a driving magazine drives cars but doesn't make them.

What the hell are you contributing? Now you're just whining about what you perceive as whining and it's telling that, like your bedfellow gothpunkboy, you can't substantively argue against the criticism. If this thread is so soul crushing, don't go on it. It's magic how that works.

Hey, hey, easy there with the harsh words and jumping to conclusions. The person made one post that they apologised for later to an extent and expressed their understanding of what they might have done wrong. I think there's no need to drag them two pages after they already acknowledged this.