3597 réponses à ce sujet

[ImaginaryMatter]

About the Reaper design but first an analogy, it has a point I promise.

 

Remember the Padme/Anakin romance in the Star Wars prequels? Something about that romance never seemed quite real to the viewer. This view didn't come from the lines of exposition though, in fact according to the characters it was a love strong enough to turn Anakin evil and ultimately leads Padme to losing the will to live. However, things like the lack of chemistry between the actors and stiff dialogue stops any dramatic tension from seeing the romance threatened. This is important because any story beat that depends on the romance will feel contrived and ultimately be uninteresting to experience. There's more to stories than what the characters are literally telling each other. Things like acting, cinematography, visuals, and, in games, mechanics, all have an effect on how a player experiences the story. Which leads me to the Reapers.

 

The harvesting process involves throwing people into a blender live and awake, they graft bodies together to make husks, the music that accompanies them is sinister, they're dark red and black with a lovecraftian appearance, Sovereign and Harbinger have nothing but contempt for other life (with Harbinger bordering on self-parody), even the "bring order to the chaos" line seems like a moral handwave. All of this leads to the overwhelming impression that the Reapers are evil -- these connotations exist for a reason across the entire spectrum of fiction. Then the Catalyst comes along and says they're actually some kind of saviors. It doesn't actually challenge the previous preconception of the Reapers though; the Catalyst is merely, by writer fiat, saying things are different now. This isn't a clever twist. Like the prequels the other parts of the story and the presentation of the Reapers aren't existent to make this revelation feel genuine.

[Natureguy85]

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 have already acknowledged this.

There was no jumping to conclusions, but I apparently missed the second post so I will likewise apologize.

[Prince Enigmatic]

About the Reaper design but first an analogy, it has a point I promise.

 

Remember the Padme/Anakin romance in the Star Wars prequels? Something about that romance never seemed quite real to the viewer. This view didn't come from the lines of exposition though, in fact according to the characters it was a love strong enough to turn Anakin evil and ultimately leads Padme to losing the will to live. However, things like the lack of chemistry between the actors and stiff dialogue stops any dramatic tension from seeing the romance threatened. This is important because any story beat that depends on the romance will feel contrived and ultimately be uninteresting to experience. There's more to stories than what the characters are literally telling each other. Things like acting, cinematography, visuals, and, in games, mechanics, all have an effect on how a player experiences the story. Which leads me to the Reapers.

 

 

 

Great analogy, and I think you are spot on about that romance, and how sometimes, volumes are said without a word being spoken, or without the two actors being in the same room.

 

A good example of this effect I think

 

 

I think this is one of the few scenes in the prequels that really stands out for me. It truly conveys the impact there relationship ultimately has, and this I think is done a million times better in just lingering looks, and the way that the camera zooms slowly in one the respective locations of the characters, an obvious symbol for how they are miles apart in ever getting to a place where there love can be accepted and whole. 

 

A lot can be said about Christensen's acting, but without any of Lucas's wooden dialogue, I think he really does a better job at portraying the extreme anguish that Anakin is feeling. Body language, seeing only half of his face at certain points, I think this scene was done really well.

 

It didn't repair the damage done in the previous films and scenes, but it made much more impact, and made me believe more in the characters and there doomed romance, than any scene where they share dialogue together. 

 

As for the Reapers, I think that Sovereign's speech was the only good time where the Reapers explaining or giving some insight into there actions was good and positive, as it still left a lot of questions we didn't really need answered. Harbinger was not as evocative a threat as Sovereign was, and the Catalyst's monologue in many ways tried to echo the effect Sovereign's speech had I would argue. Some of its lines I liked, the whole fire analogy, but as for the explaining and the revelations, they weakened what Sovereign's speech set the Reapers up to be for me.

 

I should reiterate that I feel that a discussion/mature debate about the ending was what this thread should move back towards, I didn't reflect that as well as I should have in my other post which I regret now, I just felt that for too many pages it was just cases of "ME2 crap" and "ME3 writing crap", and I felt it wasn't moving the thread along anywhere productive. Sorry again for that post.

[rossler]

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

 

It was hinted at, but I think a lot of people seem to want clear cut answers. No gray areas or hints. Which is kind of what your post says. 

 

You add what Shepard said in that video, and look at the solutions presented, and that is a hint that the Reapers designed the Crucible. Without the game stating the exact words "Reapers designed the Crucible". 

[Natureguy85]

It was hinted at, but I think a lot of people seem to want clear cut answers. No gray areas or hints. Which is kind of what your post says. 

 

You add what Shepard said in that video, and look at the solutions presented, and that is a hint that the Reapers designed the Crucible. Without the game stating the exact words "Reapers designed the Crucible". 

 

Oh it was definitely an option until the Catalyst tells you some other race made it. Sure, it could be lying, but like everything else it says, we the players know it's telling the truth because it is just there to dispense information. It is arguably not a character.

 

However, I have to point out that an ending is the place for answers, not more questions.

[Reorte]

Oh it was definitely an option until the Catalyst tells you some other race made it. Sure, it could be lying, but like everything else it says, we the players know it's telling the truth because it is just there to dispense information. It is arguably not a character.
 
However, I have to point out that an ending is the place for answers, not more questions.

The ending has to tie up various questions to do its job properly but not every single one, and it's not necessarily a bad thing if it raises one or two interesting ones that are nethertheless not really part of the current story. It's a tricky thing to do right though, partiuclarly if you want to avoid it looking like a blatant sequel hook.

[rossler]

However, I have to point out that an ending is the place for answers, not more questions.

 

You did get some answers to questions. However, it doesn't mean that all your questions will be answered. They did want to leave some things open for discussion. 

[Natureguy85]

The ending has to tie up various questions to do its job properly but not every single one, and it's not necessarily a bad thing if it raises one or two interesting ones that are nethertheless not really part of the current story. It's a tricky thing to do right though, partiuclarly if you want to avoid it looking like a blatant sequel hook.

You did get some answers to questions. However, it doesn't mean that all your questions will be answered. They did want to leave some things open for discussion.

Sure, and how much of that you can do depends on what type of story you're telling. Inception's ending is open for interpretation but it works with the entire movie that came before it.

Interestingly, both of you have commented that not everything needs to be explained, which is true, but the problem with Mass Effect is not that it didn't explain something but that it did and then the explanation was nonsense.

As to raising new questions, that can work if there's going to be more going forward, say the second chapter of a trilogy. Mass Effect 3 was supposed to wrap up everything cleanly and it did not.

[rossler]

Sure, and how much of that you can do depends on what type of story you're telling. Inception's ending is open for interpretation but it works with the entire movie that came before it.

Interestingly, both of you have commented that not everything needs to be explained, which is true, but the problem with Mass Effect is not that it didn't explain something but that it did and then the explanation was nonsense.

As to raising new questions, that can work if there's going to be more going forward, say the second chapter of a trilogy. Mass Effect 3 was supposed to wrap up everything cleanly and it did not.

 

Reaper logic wasn't nonsense to me. 

 

Mass Effect 3 wrapped up what happened to Shepard, but the rest, initially was left open. 

 

Wrapping things up cleanly, is just another way of saying you don't like ambiguous endings. You like clear cut answers with very little to debate. Which, I pretty much expected a game about choice to not wrap up cleanly and be open to interpretation. You should have seen this coming. 

[Reorte]

Interestingly, both of you have commented that not everything needs to be explained, which is true, but the problem with Mass Effect is not that it didn't explain something but that it did and then the explanation was nonsense.

Oh no argument there, I was just stating a generality, not using it as an excuse to defend what they did do. The sort of open question I was thinking of is "Do the krogan go nuts if you cure the genophage?" (although arguably the EC says no, but you could say "give it time" to that). I suppose "Exactly what did go wrong with the Catalyst for the Leviathans?" could be one. I think that there are plenty of gaps in what explanation we do get, and I'm fine with that.

[rossler]

Oh no argument there, I was just stating a generality, not using it as an excuse to defend what they did do. The sort of open question I was thinking of is "Do the krogan go nuts if you cure the genophage?" (although arguably the EC says no, but you could say "give it time" to that). I suppose "Exactly what did go wrong with the Catalyst for the Leviathans?" could be one. I think that there are plenty of gaps in what explanation we do get, and I'm fine with that.

 

It's said that because Wrex is in charge, things will be different and that they won't go down that dark path again. However, with Wreav, history is guaranteed to repeat itself at some point. 

[BloodyMares]

It's said that because Wrex is in charge, things will be different and that they won't go down that dark path again. However, with Wreav, history is guaranteed to repeat itself at some point. 

A bit naive in my opinion. No matter how awesome Wrex is, he is just one krogan. And even he tells about getting new planets (like 10) for krogan just because of their birth rate. So it is unknown what are the consequences of curing the genophage in the long run.

[rossler]

Well no one can see that far into the future. Most resolutions are just the immediate impact of things. The rest is left for you to mull over. 

[Reorte]

It's said that because Wrex is in charge, things will be different and that they won't go down that dark path again. However, with Wreav, history is guaranteed to repeat itself at some point.

I think that's my point, and whatever Wrex's intentions who knows? There's some information to you to guess probabilities but what happens is outside the scope of Shepard's story, even if getting to that point was part of it. In this case we get to know some short term answers but with important long term ones still unknown, which is exactly how it should be.

I love "and they're together now" (yeah, cue the happy ending moans). I hate "and they all live happily ever after."

[Monica21]

Reaper logic wasn't nonsense to me.

It was nonsense to me. "We're a synthetic race that was developed to prevent synthetics from destroying organics, so we're going to destroy organics before you get a chance to create a synthetic race that will destroy you."
 

Wrapping things up cleanly, is just another way of saying you don't like ambiguous endings. You like clear cut answers with very little to debate. Which, I pretty much expected a game about choice to not wrap up cleanly and be open to interpretation. You should have seen this coming.

Not when the ending leaves more questions than answers.

Control: How does Shepard's consciousness get into the Reapers? Is it just a takeover and their individual "nations" become subservient or is there any resistance from say, Shepard's BFF Harbinger? Are they just programmed to allow the takeover? What form does Shepard take in a Control? Does she look like a Reaper? How do people know that that's Shepard? Would they care that that's Shepard? If she does look like a Reaper, does she take over an existing one or is a new "body" created for her? Basically, how the holy hell is Control supposed to make any bit of sense?

Synthesis: How does a Reaper become partially organic? How can everything have the same DNA if the Reapers are synthetic? Do Reapers just start growing organic material? How do the glowy circuit boards work in organics? Does it make them live forever? Is it like nanobots? Why does Synthesis ignore that just because there is a "new framework of life" that organics are still different species? Will it brainwash separate species into not hating each other? Does this mean that the Turians, Krogan, and Salarians will all be happy together? If it does that, how does it do that?

Destroy: Why does Shepard have to walk toward the tube to shoot it?

The problem with the ending isn't that it's ambiguous, it's that I have absolutely no idea what the end result of these choices are (except for Destroy) and I can't ask what the end result will be. I don't mind ambiguity, I mind the nonsense.

[rossler]

It was nonsense to me. "We're a synthetic race that was developed to prevent synthetics from destroying organics, so we're going to destroy organics before you get a chance to create a synthetic race that will destroy you."

 

Sounds like something Xzibit said. The game doesn't mention this though. 

 

You need to lay off the internet memes and spend more time playing the game. 

[Monica21]

Sounds like something Xzibit said. The game doesn't mention this though. 
 
You need to lay off the internet memes and spend more time playing the game.

It's not based on the Yo Dawg internet meme. It's literally what the Catalyst is telling you. And I'd wager that that I've spent more time playing the game than you. Because I don't like going outside.

[rossler]

It's not based on the Yo Dawg internet meme. It's literally what the Catalyst is telling you. And I'd wager that that I've spent more time playing the game than you. Because I don't like going outside.

 

Taking everything it says literally word for word may be part of the problem. 

[Monica21]

Taking everything it says literally word for word may be part of the problem.

Where does the Catalyst not say that his race of synthetics are destroying organics to prevent organics from creating a race of synthetics that will destroy them?

[rossler]

If you don't agree with his statement, you are free to destroy the Reapers. That's how you tell him he's wrong. 

[Monica21]

If you don't agree with his statement, you are free to destroy the Reapers. That's how you tell him he's wrong. 

 

So your argument is that shooting the tube is an "agree to disagree" moment? You know, since you can't actually say, "Hey, little Catalyst dude, I think you're wrong. Maybe call off the Reapers for a few hours and we'll talk about it."

[rossler]

So your argument is that shooting the tube is an "agree to disagree" moment? You know, since you can't actually say, "Hey, little Catalyst dude, I think you're wrong. Maybe call off the Reapers for a few hours and we'll talk about it."

 

Good luck getting him to listen to you. 

 

You don't have hours, because Shepard is on the verge of death when the final decision comes. You have minutes, if that. 

 

I love this guy's analogy regarding Shepard's blood loss at the time:

 

Shepard was probably minutes away from bleeding out and probably 

didn't see a lengthy debate as an option.  You people need to stop 
trying to invent plotholes where there are none.  

 

Slit your wrists and then try to sprint as fast as you can.   I promise you it's possible.  

Shepard is allowed to not see the benefit in a lengthy debate in that context without it being a plothole.  Shepard isn't a complete idiot.  

[ImaginaryMatter]

I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind Destroy as a possible stand in for disagreeing with the Catalyst. Destroying the Geth along with the Reapers sounds like a strange way to disagree with the Catalyst. Why not just ask the Catalyst to personally Destroy the Reapers or order them to leave? That seems a lot simpler than shooting a tube. After all, the Catalyst has already entrusted Shepard with the choice to choose a new "solution" and it willing to be destroyed.

[rossler]

I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind Destroy as a possible stand in for disagreeing with the Catalyst. Destroying the Geth along with the Reapers sounds like a strange way to disagree with the Catalyst. Why not just ask the Catalyst to personally Destroy the Reapers or order them to leave? That seems a lot simpler than shooting a tube. After all, the Catalyst has already entrusted Shepard with the choice to choose a new "solution" and it willing to be destroyed.

 

You just want an ending without any consequences. 

[Monica21]

Good luck getting him to listen to you. 
 
You don't have hours, because Shepard is on the verge of death when the final decision comes. You have minutes, if that. 
 
I love this guy's analogy regarding Shepard's blood loss at the time:

That has literally nothing to do with anything I posted, because Shepard is alive for as long as the writers want her to be.