736 réponses à ce sujet

[UpUpAway]

According to Liara, he did
 

She only says that if you romance her
 

What changed for him to ask her later to help find a way to stop the reapers?

 

What's the line if you don't romance her then?  (I can't remember and I don't currently have a save at that point where I can just go back to check it right now.)  NVM, found a save where Shepard romanced Ashley with a save at the proper point.  Line is the same "It took some digging, but I recovered your tags." (at least if Shepard asks her if she is together with Feron).  Testing the situation if he doesn't ask anything right now.  Just played through without Shepard asking for any more details of Liara on Hagalaz... line is still the same... so, the question is what triggers a different line here?

 

Liara became the Shadow Broker.

[themikefest]

What's the line if you don't romance her then?  (I can't remember and I don't currently have a save at that point where I can just go back to check it right now.)  NVM, found a save where Shepard romanced Ashley with a save at the proper point.  Line is the same "It took some digging, but I recovered your tags." (at least if Shepard asks her if she is together with Feron).  Testing the situation if he doesn't ask anything right now.  Just played through without Shepard asking for any more details of Liara on Hagalaz... line is still the same... so, the question is what triggers a different line here?

She does say that. Then a moment later, says this

 

So how do you recover something if they were given to you?

Liara became the Shadow Broker.

How did he find out she became the new broker?

[UpUpAway]

She does say that. Then a moment later, says this

 

So how do you recover something if they were given to you?

How did he find out she became the new broker?

 

Ok, concede that Hackett (in some instances) can be said to have given the tags to Liara... when remains open and also somewhat within the player's control... depending on the amount of time that lapses after Liara takes over as Shadow Broker and the invite to the ship.  How did he find out she became the new broker?  Anybody's guess... perhaps she contacted him while "digging" for Shepard's tags and told him?  The phrasing is also abiguous enough that Liara could have still found the tags independently and then contacted Hackett in order to officially be granted legal possession of them in order to return them to Shepard (i.e. the Alliance's blessing).

 

The point is that, at the end of ME1, Liara is a much less experienced person than even when we first meet her on Illium... so much so that either Anderson or Hackett would not probably personally consider it appropriate to send her out looking for a Reaper solution right at the end of ME1.  Garrus, at that point is portrayed as being young and impetuous and, possibly (depending on what lines the player selects) going into Spectre training... although we all know that he becomes a vigilante instead.  Pressly is dead, Shepard is dead and the rest are a young, inexperienced lot with lots of emotional baggage preventing them from being seriously considered by either Anderson or Hackett at that time for such an important task.

 

Getting back on topic - all of these sorts of variables are problematic for a reboot scenario since such an endeavor will invariably make at least some player choices "canon" within the reboot (depending on also varying opinions as to what is or is not "keeping with basic tenet(s)" would involve in a reboot).   Again, not saying it couldn't be done... just saying it's an issue and that no matter what Bioware does with it, there are going to be parts of the fan base upset with what they do. 

 

IMO, ME:A could already qualify as a "hard reboot" of the franchise, but certainly a lot of other people don't think of it in that way... because we can't even agree on an appropriate parameter for what does and does not constitute a "reboot" which is, by definition:  "To start anew with fresh ideas in a way that is consistent with the principals of the original, but not unnecessarily constrained by what has taken place before." (Urban Dictionary)... and the definition is chock full of even more ambiguous terms that people can argue about - e.g.  like what parts of the ME Trilogy be considered necessary vs. unnecessary constraints?

 

Lakus, for example, considers the setting to be a "necessary constraint" and other people, myself included, put it in the "unnecessary" category.

[Killroy]

I really wish people wouldn't use that word wrong, but I'm starting to think it's a lost cause.

Anyway, I get the point, I think. You guys want the setting that ME appeared to be at, say, five minutes into the trilogy, right? Before any of the reveals. Or rather, the superficial appearance of that setting, since the actual substance is irrelevant to you.

That's awfully childish of you. You're one sentence away from a 'No true Scotsman' fallacy about Mass Effect fans.

[In Exile]

That's awfully childish of you. You're one sentence away from a 'No true Scotsman' fallacy about Mass Effect fans.

 
MacGuffin does mean something specific, though. 

[AlanC9]

That's awfully childish of you. You're one sentence away from a 'No true Scotsman' fallacy about Mass Effect fans.

I don't follow this. What sentence are you talking about, exactly?

And did I mis-state the position? If so, how? I wasn't trying to take any position on "Mass Effect fans" in the first place; any rational definition of that term would certainly include me. Are you maybe talking about "Mass Effect reboot fans"?

[AlanC9]

MacGuffin does mean something specific, though.

The wikipedia article is interesting. This may be yet another thing to blame on George Lucas

[Iakus]

I really wish people wouldn't use that word wrong, but I'm starting to think it's a lost cause.
 

So the Reapers are not a motivation to advance the plot, who's actual purpose is irrelevant to the overall story?

 

Face it, Alan, beacon vision (which was incoherant until more clues are found) aside, the Reapers could have been anything for the first 3/4s of ME1.  A second Skyllian Blitz in the making.  A Prothean superweapon.  A geth invasion. That it's a billion year old robopacalypse is (or could have been) a cool arc for a trilogy, for ME1's purpose, the game is mostly over by the time that reveal hits. 

 

 

Anyway, I get the point, I think. You guys want the setting that ME appeared to be at, say, five minutes into the trilogy, right? Before any of the reveals. Or rather, the superficial appearance of that setting, since the actual substance is irrelevant to you.

Your condescension is showing again.  You should really check on that.  Conversations with you are more interesting when you're not insulting people.

 

 I don't want the setting that ME "appeared to be" I want what Mass Effect was.  What even ME2 in all it's resurrection space magic and spandex-clad glory, still kinda held on to.  But ME3 in the end cr*pped on.

[Killroy]

I don't follow this. What sentence are you talking about, exactly?

And did I mis-state the position? If so, how? I wasn't trying to take any position on "Mass Effect fans" in the first place; any rational definition of that term would certainly include me. Are you maybe talking about "Mass Effect reboot fans"?

It's plain as day that you're feigning ignorance. You very clearly implied that anyone who would like a reboot is superficial and doesn't actually like Mass Effect.

[iM3GTR]

The Reapers could have been anything for the first 3/4s of ME1. A second Skyllian Blitz in the making. A Prothean superweapon. A geth invasion.

That would've been interesting. A Skyllian Blitz commited by Saren and and the Geth using a Prothean superweapon.

[Iakus]

I don't follow this. What sentence are you talking about, exactly?

And did I mis-state the position? If so, how? I wasn't trying to take any position on "Mass Effect fans" in the first place; any rational definition of that term would certainly include me. Are you maybe talking about "Mass Effect reboot fans"?

Yes you did:

 

Or rather, the superficial appearance of that setting, since the actual substance is irrelevant to you.

 

I am apparently "No True Scotsman" because what I like is superficial and without substance.  According to your position.

[AlanC9]

So the Reapers are not a motivation to advance the plot, who's actual purpose is irrelevant to the overall story?
 
Face it, Alan, beacon vision (which was incoherant until more clues are found) aside, the Reapers could have been anything for the first 3/4s of ME1.  A second Skyllian Blitz in the making.  A Prothean superweapon.  A geth invasion. That it's a billion year old robopacalypse is (or could have been) a cool arc for a trilogy, for ME1's purpose, the game is mostly over by the time that reveal hits. 

So in a different story the Reapers would have been different? Well, duh. In that other story their motivations would have been important too. And when we draw an arbitrary line before a reveal, of course the specific thing that's revealed can't be critical yet. If we knew what we were going to know in the future, we'd know it already.
 

Your condescension is showing again.  You should really check on that.  Conversations with you are more interesting when you're not insulting people.
 
 I don't want the setting that ME "appeared to be" I want what Mass Effect was.  What even ME2 in all it's resurrection space magic and spandex-clad glory, still kinda held on to.  But ME3 in the end cr*pped on.

Honestly, I'm not interested in controlling it when the topic is as pointless as this one. It's like an IT thread. It isn't happening, Bio was never interested, and the case for it is based on a bunch of inchoate feelings which we aren't actually talking about.

I mean, you just did it right there. What was Mass Effect? Killroy didn't seem to be able to come up with the actual tenets that needed to be preserved. Can you? And can you make a case for why they won't be present in ME:A that isn't based on ungrounded fear and existing disappointment?

[AlanC9]

Yes you did:
 
Or rather, the superficial appearance of that setting, since the actual substance is irrelevant to you.
 
I am apparently "No True Scotsman" because what I like is superficial and without substance.  According to your position.

I don't see where the No True Scotsman part comes in. My understanding is that the plan is to keep the results of the Reaper plot -- Citadel, relays, cycles -- while either swapping out the details of the plot or just handwaving the whole rationale away.

[In Exile]

So the Reapers are not a motivation to advance the plot, who's actual purpose is irrelevant to the overall story?

Face it, Alan, beacon vision (which was incoherant until more clues are found) aside, the Reapers could have been anything for the first 3/4s of ME1. A second Skyllian Blitz in the making. A Prothean superweapon. A geth invasion. That it's a billion year old robopacalypse is (or could have been) a cool arc for a trilogy, for ME1's purpose, the game is mostly over by the time that reveal hits.

Your condescension is showing again. You should really check on that. Conversations with you are more interesting when you're not insulting people.

I don't want the setting that ME "appeared to be" I want what Mass Effect was. What even ME2 in all it's resurrection space magic and spandex-clad glory, still kinda held on to. But ME3 in the end cr*pped on.

The beacon is the entire plot of ME1. You can't just ignore it anymore than you can ignore the fact that relays or the citadel are reaper tech. Shepard knows and believes - with religious and fanatical fervor - that the reapers are a race of machines that wiped out galatic civilization. Shepard straight up says this when you rescue Tali.

The Reapers were established as a genocidal race of machines before Shepard even became a Spectre. They could be none of these things without so radically everything everything about Mass Effect that you'd do the very thing you complain MEA is doing to ME.

[Iakus]

So in a different story the Reapers would have been different? Well, duh. In that other story their motivations would have been important too. And when we draw an arbitrary line before a reveal, of course the specific thing that's revealed can't be critical yet. If we knew what we were going to know in the future, we'd know it already.
 

In a different story the Reapers might have been the same, different, or altogether absent.  Because it's a different story.

 

We spent most of ME1 trying to discover what the Reapers are.  And thus, as you've pointed out they aren't critical until that point.  And since they are largely ignored in ME2, they aren't important there either.

 

Thus the Mass Effect setting can be largely rebooted, with new and different stories told WITHOUT REAPERS and not change said setting overly much.

 

 

 

Honestly, I'm not interested in controlling it when the topic is as pointless as this one. It's like an IT thread. It isn't happening, Bio was never interested, and the case for it is based on a bunch of inchoate feelings which we aren't actually talking about.

I mean, you just did it right there. What was Mass Effect? Killroy didn't seem to be able to come up with the actual tenets that needed to be preserved. Can you? And can you make a case for why they won't be present in ME:A that isn't based on ungrounded fear and existing disappointment?

 

If this is a pointless topic, then why are you here?  Why are you trolling posters in a thread you supposedly don't care about when you can have much more stimulating talks about how blue is your favorite ending, or whatever?

[In Exile]

In a different story the Reapers might have been the same, different, or altogether absent. Because it's a different story.

We spent most of ME1 trying to discover what the Reapers are. And thus, as you've pointed out they aren't critical until that point. And since they are largely ignored in ME2, they aren't important there either.

Thus the Mass Effect setting can be largely rebooted, with new and different stories told WITHOUT REAPERS and not change said setting overly much.


If this is a pointless topic, then why are you here? Why are you trolling posters in a thread you supposedly don't care about when you can have much more stimulating talks about how blue is your favorite ending, or whatever?

We spend absolutely no part of ME1 trying to figure out the Reapers. Again, I feel compelled to ask if you've played the game. Shepard outright tells you what the Reapers are before you go to see the Council to strip Saren of his Spectre status.

We spent a large part of the game hunting Saren and the Conduit. But at no point is there a question as to what the Reapers are meant to be in-game. The biggest reveal of ME1 is simply that Sovereign isn't just a ship but an actual Reaper.

The Repears are the driving force of the plot. Saren wants to bring them back. Shepard knows what they are for realsies. No one except Anderson believes you. There are multiple conversations about this point - with the Council and Udina.

Removing the Reapers would so fundamentally change the ME1 setting that it would be unrecogniziable. Who build the Mass Relays? Where did the Prothean go? Why are all galatic civilizations less than 50,000 years old? Who built the Citadel? Why were the Krogan uplifted? How are the Turians a Council race?

Each of these things happens directly because of the Reapers.

[Iakus]

We spend absolutely no part of ME1 trying to figure out the Reapers. Again, I feel compelled to ask if you've played the game. Shepard outright tells you what the Reapers are before you go to see the Council to strip Saren of his Spectre status.

We spent a large part of the game hunting Saren and the Conduit. But at no point is there a question as to what the Reapers are meant to be in-game. The biggest reveal of ME1 is simply that Sovereign isn't just a ship but an actual Reaper.

The Repears are the driving force of the plot. Saren wants to bring them back. Shepard knows what they are for realsies. No one except Anderson believes you. There are multiple conversations about this point - with the Council and Udina.

Shepard knew they were 2 kilometer long space Cthulhu sleeping out in dark space?  I admit, I missed that part.

 

 

 

Removing the Reapers would so fundamentally change the ME1 setting that it would be unrecogniziable. Who build the Mass Relays? 

Someone.  Does t matter?  The galaxy got by for thousands of years without knowing.

 

 

 

Where did the Prothean go?

Somewhere.  Again, for thousands of years that question didn't matter.

 

 

 

Why are all galatic civilizations less than 50,000 years old? 

Gotta start somewhere.

 

 

 

Who built the Citadel? 

You would not know them, and there is no time to explain.

 

On a more serious not, the answer is the same  as "who built the relays"

 

 

 

Why were the Krogan uplifted? 

However they choose to explain in this continuity

 

 

 

How are the Turians a Council race?
 

See krogan explanation

 

 

Each of these things happens directly because of the Reapers.

In the current continuity.  But then, Batman's parents were killed by different people in different continuities 

[Cyberstrike nTo]

The wikipedia article is interesting. This may be yet another thing to blame on George Lucas

 

Actually Alfred Hitchcock is believed to have coined the term "MacGuffin". It refers to a plot device that is only there to start the story, but ultimately it's the least thing important in the story. A great example is: The $40,000 Janet Leigh stole at the start of Psycho is just there to start the story but once she's killed and Norman unknowingly throws the money in the trunk of her car and sinks her body and the 40 grand in a swamp. The $40,000 is the MacGuffin because you think it's going to important and really it's not important at all. 

[AlanC9]

Actually Alfred Hitchcock is believed to have coined the term "MacGuffin". It refers to a plot device that is only there to start the story, but ultimately it's the least thing important in the story. A great example is: The $40,000 Janet Leigh stole at the start of Psycho is just there to start the story but once she's killed and Norman unknowingly throws the money in the trunk of her car and sinks her body and the 40 grand in a swamp. The $40,000 is the MacGuffin because you think it's going to important and really it's not important at all.

Yeah, I know. My point was that Lucas seems to have been patient zero for stretching the meaning of the term to cover other stuff, to the point where the term almost doesn't mean anything in particular anymore.

[AlanC9]

In a different story the Reapers might have been the same, different, or altogether absent. Because it's a different story.

We spent most of ME1 trying to discover what the Reapers are. And thus, as you've pointed out they aren't critical until that point. And since they are largely ignored in ME2, they aren't important there either.

Thus the Mass Effect setting can be largely rebooted, with new and different stories told WITHOUT REAPERS and not change said setting overly much.

We don't have a substantive disagreement here, I think. If a setting is defined by the superficial details rather than the story, then sure, it's implicit in that definition that you can reboot the setting by keeping the details rather than the story. You'd need to come up with other rationales for the stuff that was caused by the original story, but since the details are the priority rather than the story, any handwave will do. (To borrow the Batman example, we're keeping the specific details of Bruce Wayne's parents' lives, and losing the murders.)

But why should we keep that stuff? If there are no Reapers, why should there be a Citadel or relays? I guess we still need to come up with some answer to the Fermi paradox even if we dump the protheans, though. Or do we just dump all of that and keep the races and the basic techs?

As for why I'm here, I find this abstract stuff entertaining.

[AlleyD]

As I understand it, a hard reboot strategy is an option that IP holders use to attempt to disconnect a franchise from historical factors that imposed a major negative on the potential of a franchise. The previous incarnations of the brand may have performed so poorly in the critical and commercial arenas that the brandname was consigned to a period of limbo.

 

While I have a very negative opinion on the standards of story telling within the Mass Effect canon, I recognize that my opinion is in a minority that does not equate with the acclaim that all three games received and the increase in sales across the trilogy. Instead of being critically lambasted, all three games were critically acclaimed and were even been regarded as some of the best examples of the art of computer game design. Also. ,while ME3 may have imposed some negative stress on the franchise within some more invested fans, the sales figures I have read have it as the best performing of the series by significant numbers and it would make more commercial sense to try and appeal to the majority opinion of a market.

[Iakus]

We don't have a substantive disagreement here, I think. If a setting is defined by the superficial details rather than the story, then sure, it's implicit in that definition that you can reboot the setting by keeping the details rather than the story. You'd need to come up with other rationales for the stuff that was caused by the original story, but since the details are the priority rather than the story, any handwave will do. (To borrow the Batman example, we're keeping the specific details of Bruce Wayne's parents' lives, and losing the murders.)

 

Well, as noted there are many different definitions of "reboot" With greater or lesser variations on the importance of the story itself.  

 

To again refer to Batman, there's actually a variation where it was Bruce that was killed in that robbery and his father Thomas Wayne became Batman instead.

Then there's the Elseworlds where Bruce became a Green Lantern.

 

The possibilities are limitless.

 

 

 

But why should we keep that stuff? If there are no Reapers, why should there be a Citadel or relays? I guess we still need to come up with some answer to the Fermi paradox even if we dump the protheans, though. Or do we just dump all of that and keep the races and the basic techs?

 

The Fermi paradox is part of it, though really any precursor race would do as the creators of the network.  Even the Protheans.  But it's also a handy way to manage interstellar travel.It's a symbol of the setting, so we might as well keep them.

[Prince Enigmatic]

 

Actually Alfred Hitchcock is believed to have coined the term "MacGuffin". It refers to a plot device that is only there to start the story, but ultimately it's the least thing important in the story. A great example is: The $40,000 Janet Leigh stole at the start of Psycho is just there to start the story but once she's killed and Norman unknowingly throws the money in the trunk of her car and sinks her body and the 40 grand in a swamp. The $40,000 is the MacGuffin because you think it's going to important and really it's not important at all. 

 

Yeah, I know. My point was that Lucas seems to have been patient zero for stretching the meaning of the term to cover other stuff, to the point where the term almost doesn't mean anything in particular anymore.

 

These days I've seen MacGuffin sort of become this umbrella term for any case of cheap, easy writing, especially in popular films. 

 

I've also seen it cropping up in video game story and plot discussions as well, with Ellie from The Last of Us being criticized as a MacGuffin by some...  you can be critical of anything, just don't throw in a term that has no relevance to the point you are making.

[goishen]

You keep tossing around this word reboot like it means restart, re-imagine the lore of all characters and races, resigning from the current (and objectively strong) universe that they already have.  I'll agree with starting from a different place, but that's a far cry from a restart.  As far as the other two go, just no.  I like where this universe is headed, I like where the lore has taken and will continue to take me. 

 

Sorry if you don't feel that.  I guess I'll see ya in the next game.

[iM3GTR]

Actually Alfred Hitchcock is believed to have coined the term "MacGuffin". It refers to a plot device that is only there to start the story, but ultimately it's the least thing important in the story. A great example is: The $40,000 Janet Leigh stole at the start of Psycho is just there to start the story but once she's killed and Norman unknowingly throws the money in the trunk of her car and sinks her body and the 40 grand in a swamp. The $40,000 is the MacGuffin because you think it's going to important and really it's not important at all.

So the real MacGuffin in Mass Effect was the fact that Normandy was on a "shakedown run".