57139 réponses à ce sujet

[Bill Casey]

Synthesis, lols...

[SS2Dante]

Simon_Says wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Simon_Says wrote...

For three games the reapers have been the enemy. Now that the crucible is connected, a device with a function we explicitly aren't told, and you're going to take the Catalyst's word at face value? Seriously?

And why do they want us to develop on technological paths that lead to creating synthetic intelligence if synthetic intelligence is a problem?

But you aren't explicitly told that the Catalyst can be wrong either, you are just making suppositions on your initial impressions of the ending. With the endings taken at face-value, we realise the true purpose of the Crucible and what the Catalyst is, which the whole of ME3 has been leading up to.

As for your second question, it would be much easier to destroy organics and prevent them from becoming too advanced if they all operated via one system and did not diversify. They are all at the mercy of Reaper tech.

My God. I seriously hope you aren't in charge of anything important. The Catalyst is associated with the reapers. Ergo it was the enemy, real or not. Yes it's possible that the crucible gave it a change of heart but to actually act on this small hope or to take it seriously is... stupid and suicidal.

And we know the Catalyst is wrong, simply because of EDI and the Geth. Synthetics who are perfectly willing to coexist with organics.

And yes, it's obvious they left the mass relay network to make the job of exterminating civilizations more efficient. That much was already obvious. But you still haven't answered my question: the tech they left lead numerous races to developing synthetic intelligence. It's like spiking a person's drink with anthrax and then executing the person so that their disease doesn't spread to other people. It's stupid.

Me leaving right now but just wanna chime in and point out this is the same pointless discussion we've all had a billion times (not criticism of you two, just mean that this'll go on for ages and won't result in a satisfactory ending for anyone)  I advise you to change subject

[MaximizedAction]

Lakeshow1986 wrote...

I was watching a youtube video that brought the point up when the Catalyst says;

"You have hope, more than you think. The fact that you're standing here, the first organic ever proves it. But is also proves that my solution won't work anymore."

This made me think about how the focus of the conversation shifts after this. Before it's talking about how the reapers are needed to ensure organics as a whole survive, by removing the threat of advanced races to create synthetics.

Shepard rejects this.

"I think we'd rather keep our own form"

"You're taking away our future, without a future we have no hope. Without hope we may as well be machines."

This is when we are presented with the new "solution". The catalyst cannot convince us that the reapers are essential without a new spin. The reapers final attack on Shepard is to offer the illusion of choice to finally satisfy Shepard. We are offered a "choice", it is from this point that the doubt sets in.

"Maybe"

"I don't know"

Shepard is less certain from this point onward after the new solution is presented to us. What we as the player must understand that control of the reapers establishes that Shepard accepts that control, not free will, is the best outcome. The idea of indoctrination is now fully implanted in his or her mind.

Synthesis is also understanding that this "pinnacle of evolution" is the process of creating a reaper. The reapers see themselves as this pinnacle, but they need organics to do this. Choosing this accepts that the reapers are the endpoint of all advanced civilizations.

Destroy is the only option that you can still reject the options that are given to you. From low EMS to high you are able to piece together the ending from the Normandy's door opening, to seeing the ground crew leave the Normandy to the scene of Shepard "waking up".

The end isn't the fight between Organics and Synthetics, it's a battle between Control and Freewill. The choice to still see through the lies and reject what is given to you.

It's interesting, the whole theme of the series is choice. It's the so called chaos of choice that the reapers oppose. Through their technology left behind (mass relays and the citadel) they aim to control organics, indoctrination is their strongest tool to aid this. Commander Shepard choosing the destroy option overcomes indoctrination, thus becoming the greatest weapon against the reapers.

TL/DR - Shepard is the first organic to resist the process of indoctrination this far, which is why the Catalyst requires a new solution in order to complete the process of indoctrination, which is the illusion of choice. By choosing destroy, Shepard is able to resist the final assault on their mind.

This new "solution" is designed to appease to our desire to choose our outcome, which is a trap.

Very nice sum up, DID read!

The trilogy IS about choice, but we also control the choices of Shepard.
Funny...maybe this explains why Shepard, scared for the first and only time, looks right into the camera, us, when he says "Harbinger?" before the conduit run).

[balance5050]

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

LOL! Again.

How can the Catalyst claim that he wants to prune organics so that we don't create synthetics if the tech they left for us is conducive to creating synthetics?

Also, it's impossible for a synthetics to kill off all organics, only 1% of the Mass Effect galaxy has been discovered and there are countless civilizations and species yet to be discovered (even on earth)

In the time it would take to purge organics from one corner of the Galaxy, more will spring up in another.

The catalysts entire argument is hypocrisy built on lies.

The idea behind the Catalyst's thinking is that the benefit of making sure organics develop along Reaper lines outweighs their ability to create synthetics. After all, if it takes organics less time to make synthetics by using the Mass Relays and Citadel, then Reapers just return to the galaxy a little bit before they would without them. However, if Synthetics do develop without those Reaper failsafe mechanisms, then it would be harder to control them and they (the synthetics) would be more likely to destroy all of organic life

As for killing of all organics, I think BW were going along the lines of Grey Goo theory, end-of-world scenarios where synthetics devour all organic life in their path. Over a long enough amount of time, synthetics would be able to colonise everywhere and kill everything

So by providing us with the tools to create synthetics they are preventing us from creating synthetics? 

[NeoDobby]

SubAstris wrote...

NeoDobby wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

1) He says so
2) You could apply this for a number of scenes in ME, list in any you care to mention, Eden Prime, the Resurrection, Collector Base etc

I don't know what exactly you mean in the scenes of Eden Prime and the Collector Base, but about the Resurrection: I know that this involves an amount of space magic comparable to the Synthesis ending taken at face value, but the video logs on the Cerberus Base at least give explanation so that it involve a tolerable amount of suspension of disbelief to make it plausible. There is no such thing for the credibility of starchild.

Could you explain what you think with Eden Prime and the Collector Base so we can discuss it?

I wasn't picking them out specifically, I was just picking out a variety of scenes which in terms of the ME universe you can't "prove" happened. It is very likely that they did in fact happen though, although some people apply skepticism to the validity of the ending it seems because of dislike of the ending and not any credible reason.

I kinda agree with you about the Resurrection, however you can understand why BW didn't give even a little explanation of how synthesis works. I think a pop-up that explains in pseudo-scientific terms how it works when the Catalyst is revealing Synthesis to you would be crude and would slacken a lot of tension at the ending

True, but the fact noone seems to be able to come up with a reasonable explanation of how Synthesis could work (and considering the amount of energy that would be needed to actually do it) is what makes this so unbelievable for us.

Yes, there is no "proof" for any of the scenes that they actually happened. But in contrary to the ending there are also no clues/hints that suggest that the three games before the ending didn't happen. That's why there is pretty much a consensus that everything happened up to one of the multiple possible beginnings of the dream sequence. I don't have to list them here, the whole IT foots on them.

Modifié par NeoDobby, 08 mai 2012 - 07:37 .

[SubAstris]

Simon_Says wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Simon_Says wrote...

For three games the reapers have been the enemy. Now that the crucible is connected, a device with a function we explicitly aren't told, and you're going to take the Catalyst's word at face value? Seriously?

And why do they want us to develop on technological paths that lead to creating synthetic intelligence if synthetic intelligence is a problem?

But you aren't explicitly told that the Catalyst can be wrong either, you are just making suppositions on your initial impressions of the ending. With the endings taken at face-value, we realise the true purpose of the Crucible and what the Catalyst is, which the whole of ME3 has been leading up to.

As for your second question, it would be much easier to destroy organics and prevent them from becoming too advanced if they all operated via one system and did not diversify. They are all at the mercy of Reaper tech.

My God. I seriously hope you aren't in charge of anything important. The Catalyst is associated with the reapers. Ergo it was the enemy, real or not. Yes it's possible that the crucible gave it a change of heart but to actually act on this small hope or to take it seriously is... stupid and suicidal.

And we know the Catalyst is wrong, simply because of EDI and the Geth. Synthetics who are perfectly willing to coexist with organics.

And yes, it's obvious they left the mass relay network to make the job of exterminating civilizations more efficient. That much was already obvious. But you still haven't answered my question: the tech they left lead numerous races to developing synthetic intelligence. It's like spiking a person's drink with anthrax and then executing the person so that their disease doesn't spread to other people. It's stupid.

It has changed, and you don't just have to take its word for it, but look at the outcome of the decisions. In destroy, the Reapers do get destroyed, in synthesis, there is a physical merging of synthetic and organic DNA as shown by painted circuitry. In this respect the Catalyst kept his promises and delivered.

From evidence given to us in the ME universe, yes, the Catalyst seems wrong, at least in this cycle, EDI and the Geth can survive peacefully with organics, which is why I think the ending in this case did seem disjointed and not well done. BW tried to incorporate a common sci-fi cliche of a war between synthetics and organics into a game which didn't fit that. However, it is possible in other cycles that other synthetics would not be so peaceful; remember it only takes one rogue group of synthetics to destroy all life in the galaxy. Admittedly, this wasn't explained well in the game.

I think I answered someone else on the cost-benefits of what the Catalyst did

[Earthborn_Shepard]

Bill Casey wrote...

Synthesis, lols...

seriously, every time synthesis appeared in ME it either failed horribly or created a monster. There's no proof this would be the peak of evolution.

[SubAstris]

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

LOL! Again.

How can the Catalyst claim that he wants to prune organics so that we don't create synthetics if the tech they left for us is conducive to creating synthetics?

Also, it's impossible for a synthetics to kill off all organics, only 1% of the Mass Effect galaxy has been discovered and there are countless civilizations and species yet to be discovered (even on earth)

In the time it would take to purge organics from one corner of the Galaxy, more will spring up in another.

The catalysts entire argument is hypocrisy built on lies.

The idea behind the Catalyst's thinking is that the benefit of making sure organics develop along Reaper lines outweighs their ability to create synthetics. After all, if it takes organics less time to make synthetics by using the Mass Relays and Citadel, then Reapers just return to the galaxy a little bit before they would without them. However, if Synthetics do develop without those Reaper failsafe mechanisms, then it would be harder to control them and they (the synthetics) would be more likely to destroy all of organic life

As for killing of all organics, I think BW were going along the lines of Grey Goo theory, end-of-world scenarios where synthetics devour all organic life in their path. Over a long enough amount of time, synthetics would be able to colonise everywhere and kill everything

So by providing us with the tools to create synthetics they are preventing us from creating synthetics? 

It is cost vs benefit. The Catalyst sees the benefits are greater than the costs, and so allows Reaper tech to be available, knowing that it would be easier to cull organics

[Bill Casey]

Earthborn_Shepard wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

Synthesis, lols...

seriously, every time synthesis appeared in ME it either failed horribly or created a monster. There's no proof this would be the peak of evolution.

There's Shepard...

Shepard is Blade...
He is Vampire Hunter D...

I can't see either of them jumping into a machine that turns everyone into vampires...
And Shepard was forcibly transformed by the villainous Illusive Man...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 08 mai 2012 - 07:25 .

[dreamgazer]

Bill Casey wrote...

Synthesis, lols...

Oooooh, a visual collage (a pretty one, at that) of the ideas I spout out when talking about the disturbing, negative implications of synthesis. I believe I'll hold onto that---thanks!

[ExtendedCut]

SubAstris wrote...



It depends what you want. Some people would not have wanted the Reapers' motives revealed because it was not needed. Meanwhile I prefer to understand the motives of my villains so I can understand them on a psychological level, and I personally think that creates a more interesting story. To have them do things because they do can make the character uninteresting IMO

I have to disagree with you here.  There is a big difference between understanding your enemy's intentions (or not) and having them turn out to be much less omnipotent and powerful than made out to be.  If you believe Starkid, then the Reapers go from super-badguy to the equivalent of Stormtroopers.  It's a huge let-down for the story, no matter what your POV on understanding them.

You are talking about decreasing the "mystery" of the Reapers by understanding them.  I'm talking about decreasing the quality of the story by the Starkid belittling the importance of the Reapers.

Modifié par ExtendedCut, 08 mai 2012 - 07:31 .

[SubAstris]

ExtendedCut wrote...

SubAstris wrote...



It depends what you want. Some people would not have wanted the Reapers' motives revealed because it was not needed. Meanwhile I prefer to understand the motives of my villains so I can understand them on a psychological level, and I personally think that creates a more interesting story. To have them do things because they do can make the character uninteresting IMO

I have to disagree with you here.  There is a big difference between understanding your enemy's intentions (or not) and having them turn out to be much less omnipotent and powerful than made out to be.  If you believe Starkid, then the Reapers go from super-badguy to the equivalent of Stormtroopers.  It's a huge let-down for the story, no matter what your POV on understanding them.

Fair enough. I was just stating an opinion. Some might have said that any explanation of the Reapers' intentions would have made them seem less powerful

[Tirian Thorn]

Bill Casey wrote...

Earthborn_Shepard wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

Synthesis, lols...

*snip

seriously, every time synthesis appeared in ME it either failed horribly or created a monster. There's no proof this would be the peak of evolution.

There's Shepard...

Shepard is Blade...
He is Vampire Hunter D...

I can't see either of them jumping into a machine that turns everyone into vampires...
And Shepard was forcibly transformed by the villainous Illusive Man...

Modifié par Tirian Thorn, 08 mai 2012 - 07:34 .

[balance5050]

@ Subarstis

Casey Hudson Quotes - March 14

"I didn't want the game to be forgettable," Hudson told Digital Trends. "Even right down to the sort of polarizing reaction that the ends have had with people - debating what the endings mean and what's going to happen next, and what situation are the characters left in."

"That to me is part of what's exciting about this story. There has always been a little bit of mystery there [reapers] and a little bit of interpretation, and it's a story that people can talk about after the fact."

Casey Hudson quotes from game informer -February (after the game went gold

"Some missions start to shed light on what you need to do. As things progress in the high-level storyline, we’re constantly trying to do redirects. You think you win the war by doing one thing, and then you realize it’s something else."

"We end up exploring some spaces that maybe have never been done before. Because interactive storytelling is still kind of new, there are neat things to try. One of the things we’re trying in Mass Effect 3 is the idea that we can let you feel something that is part of that character’s experience versus strictly getting you to react to things that you see and experience. We’re trying to tell a little bit of the story Shepard would feel and seeing if the player feels that as well. You saw that on the Earth mission, and you see it throughout the game. It’s insight into how Shepard feels. I think that’s going to be one of the things people remember."

"To some degree, we need to see how people respond to Mass Effect 3 and what they’re hoping to see in the future."

[Big Bad]

SubAstris wrote...

Simon_Says wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Simon_Says wrote...

For three games the reapers have been the enemy. Now that the crucible is connected, a device with a function we explicitly aren't told, and you're going to take the Catalyst's word at face value? Seriously?

And why do they want us to develop on technological paths that lead to creating synthetic intelligence if synthetic intelligence is a problem?

But you aren't explicitly told that the Catalyst can be wrong either, you are just making suppositions on your initial impressions of the ending. With the endings taken at face-value, we realise the true purpose of the Crucible and what the Catalyst is, which the whole of ME3 has been leading up to.

As for your second question, it would be much easier to destroy organics and prevent them from becoming too advanced if they all operated via one system and did not diversify. They are all at the mercy of Reaper tech.

My God. I seriously hope you aren't in charge of anything important. The Catalyst is associated with the reapers. Ergo it was the enemy, real or not. Yes it's possible that the crucible gave it a change of heart but to actually act on this small hope or to take it seriously is... stupid and suicidal.

And we know the Catalyst is wrong, simply because of EDI and the Geth. Synthetics who are perfectly willing to coexist with organics.

And yes, it's obvious they left the mass relay network to make the job of exterminating civilizations more efficient. That much was already obvious. But you still haven't answered my question: the tech they left lead numerous races to developing synthetic intelligence. It's like spiking a person's drink with anthrax and then executing the person so that their disease doesn't spread to other people. It's stupid.

It has changed, and you don't just have to take its word for it, but look at the outcome of the decisions. In destroy, the Reapers do get destroyed, in synthesis, there is a physical merging of synthetic and organic DNA as shown by painted circuitry. In this respect the Catalyst kept his promises and delivered.

From evidence given to us in the ME universe, yes, the Catalyst seems wrong, at least in this cycle, EDI and the Geth can survive peacefully with organics, which is why I think the ending in this case did seem disjointed and not well done. BW tried to incorporate a common sci-fi cliche of a war between synthetics and organics into a game which didn't fit that. However, it is possible in other cycles that other synthetics would not be so peaceful; remember it only takes one rogue group of synthetics to destroy all life in the galaxy. Admittedly, this wasn't explained well in the game.

I think I answered someone else on the cost-benefits of what the Catalyst did

Wait, so you think that the writers go out of their way to contradict one of the major themes of the series (that it is not inevitable for organics and synthetics to be in conflict) in the last five minutes of the game, and that this was done on accident?

[SS2Dante]

balance5050 wrote...

@ Subarstis

Casey Hudson Quotes - March 14

"I didn't want the game to be forgettable," Hudson told Digital Trends. "Even right down to the sort of polarizing reaction that the ends have had with people - debating what the endings mean and what's going to happen next, and what situation are the characters left in."

"That to me is part of what's exciting about this story. There has always been a little bit of mystery there [reapers] and a little bit of interpretation, and it's a story that people can talk about after the fact."

Casey Hudson quotes from game informer -February (after the game went gold

"Some missions start to shed light on what you need to do. As things progress in the high-level storyline, we’re constantly trying to do redirects. You think you win the war by doing one thing, and then you realize it’s something else."

"We end up exploring some spaces that maybe have never been done before. Because interactive storytelling is still kind of new, there are neat things to try. One of the things we’re trying in Mass Effect 3 is the idea that we can let you feel something that is part of that character’s experience versus strictly getting you to react to things that you see and experience. We’re trying to tell a little bit of the story Shepard would feel and seeing if the player feels that as well. You saw that on the Earth mission, and you see it throughout the game. It’s insight into how Shepard feels. I think that’s going to be one of the things people remember."

"To some degree, we need to see how people respond to Mass Effect 3 and what they’re hoping to see in the future."

Wonderful irony, people calling them stupid, because even taking the endings at face value we're doing EXACTLY what they intended. So obviously they're smarter than everyone realises, one way or the other

[Thorn Harvestar]

SS2Dante wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

@ Subarstis

Casey Hudson Quotes - March 14

"I didn't want the game to be forgettable," Hudson told Digital Trends. "Even right down to the sort of polarizing reaction that the ends have had with people - debating what the endings mean and what's going to happen next, and what situation are the characters left in."

"That to me is part of what's exciting about this story. There has always been a little bit of mystery there [reapers] and a little bit of interpretation, and it's a story that people can talk about after the fact."

Casey Hudson quotes from game informer -February (after the game went gold

"Some missions start to shed light on what you need to do. As things progress in the high-level storyline, we’re constantly trying to do redirects. You think you win the war by doing one thing, and then you realize it’s something else."

"We end up exploring some spaces that maybe have never been done before. Because interactive storytelling is still kind of new, there are neat things to try. One of the things we’re trying in Mass Effect 3 is the idea that we can let you feel something that is part of that character’s experience versus strictly getting you to react to things that you see and experience. We’re trying to tell a little bit of the story Shepard would feel and seeing if the player feels that as well. You saw that on the Earth mission, and you see it throughout the game. It’s insight into how Shepard feels. I think that’s going to be one of the things people remember."

"To some degree, we need to see how people respond to Mass Effect 3 and what they’re hoping to see in the future."

Wonderful irony, people calling them stupid, because even taking the endings at face value we're doing EXACTLY what they intended. So obviously they're smarter than everyone realises, one way or the other

I hadn't seen those last quotes before. Curious indeed.

[SubAstris]

balance5050 wrote...

@ Subarstis

Casey Hudson Quotes - March 14"

"There has always been a little bit of mystery there [reapers] and a little bit of interpretation, "

You were talking specifically about the purpose of the Reapers, but there's no indication that he is specifically talking about it there

[ExtendedCut]

SubAstris wrote...

ExtendedCut wrote...

SubAstris wrote...



It depends what you want. Some people would not have wanted the Reapers' motives revealed because it was not needed. Meanwhile I prefer to understand the motives of my villains so I can understand them on a psychological level, and I personally think that creates a more interesting story. To have them do things because they do can make the character uninteresting IMO

I have to disagree with you here.  There is a big difference between understanding your enemy's intentions (or not) and having them turn out to be much less omnipotent and powerful than made out to be.  If you believe Starkid, then the Reapers go from super-badguy to the equivalent of Stormtroopers.  It's a huge let-down for the story, no matter what your POV on understanding them.

Fair enough. I was just stating an opinion. Some might have said that any explanation of the Reapers' intentions would have made them seem less powerful

Yeah, that makes sense. 

Still, in the end, the question remains - Why would Bioware want the Reapers to sound omnipotent and "beyond comprehension" (i.e. foreshadow the possibility that we can't and won't understand their intentions), only to end up giving an explanation that is simple and somewhat lacking?  The answer has to be either a) poor writing, or there is more to it.  And hoping that there's "more to it" is the basis for much of IT, it seems.

[SubAstris]

Big Bad wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Simon_Says wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Simon_Says wrote...

For three games the reapers have been the enemy. Now that the crucible is connected, a device with a function we explicitly aren't told, and you're going to take the Catalyst's word at face value? Seriously?

And why do they want us to develop on technological paths that lead to creating synthetic intelligence if synthetic intelligence is a problem?

But you aren't explicitly told that the Catalyst can be wrong either, you are just making suppositions on your initial impressions of the ending. With the endings taken at face-value, we realise the true purpose of the Crucible and what the Catalyst is, which the whole of ME3 has been leading up to.

As for your second question, it would be much easier to destroy organics and prevent them from becoming too advanced if they all operated via one system and did not diversify. They are all at the mercy of Reaper tech.

My God. I seriously hope you aren't in charge of anything important. The Catalyst is associated with the reapers. Ergo it was the enemy, real or not. Yes it's possible that the crucible gave it a change of heart but to actually act on this small hope or to take it seriously is... stupid and suicidal.

And we know the Catalyst is wrong, simply because of EDI and the Geth. Synthetics who are perfectly willing to coexist with organics.

And yes, it's obvious they left the mass relay network to make the job of exterminating civilizations more efficient. That much was already obvious. But you still haven't answered my question: the tech they left lead numerous races to developing synthetic intelligence. It's like spiking a person's drink with anthrax and then executing the person so that their disease doesn't spread to other people. It's stupid.

It has changed, and you don't just have to take its word for it, but look at the outcome of the decisions. In destroy, the Reapers do get destroyed, in synthesis, there is a physical merging of synthetic and organic DNA as shown by painted circuitry. In this respect the Catalyst kept his promises and delivered.

From evidence given to us in the ME universe, yes, the Catalyst seems wrong, at least in this cycle, EDI and the Geth can survive peacefully with organics, which is why I think the ending in this case did seem disjointed and not well done. BW tried to incorporate a common sci-fi cliche of a war between synthetics and organics into a game which didn't fit that. However, it is possible in other cycles that other synthetics would not be so peaceful; remember it only takes one rogue group of synthetics to destroy all life in the galaxy. Admittedly, this wasn't explained well in the game.

I think I answered someone else on the cost-benefits of what the Catalyst did

Wait, so you think that the writers go out of their way to contradict one of the major themes of the series (that it is not inevitable for organics and synthetics to be in conflict) in the last five minutes of the game, and that this was done on accident?

It is badly done, I agree wholeheartedly. However, I can see where BW were going with it. They wanted a spectacular ending to the series which would make people think, and that is what introducing the Catalyst did and does. I don't think the contradiction was done purposefully, and the Catalyst could technically still be right (he hasn't been proved wrong, his premises are questionable though)

[balance5050]

 A very telling tweet from Michel Gamble comparing this debate with another well known debate in sci-fi history.
https://twitter.com/...377974838956032

[ExtendedCut]

Big Bad wrote...


Wait, so you think that the writers go out of their way to contradict one of the major themes of the series (that it is not inevitable for organics and synthetics to be in conflict) in the last five minutes of the game, and that this was done on accident?

Another very good point. 

The instigation/motivations of the Geth/Quarian war was a major aspect of ME3 - and the entire moral of that plot-line was to prove that the Geth would NOT kill organics without cause.  Yet that is the exact opposite of Starbrat's explanation.

[SubAstris]

ExtendedCut wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

ExtendedCut wrote...

SubAstris wrote...



It depends what you want. Some people would not have wanted the Reapers' motives revealed because it was not needed. Meanwhile I prefer to understand the motives of my villains so I can understand them on a psychological level, and I personally think that creates a more interesting story. To have them do things because they do can make the character uninteresting IMO

I have to disagree with you here.  There is a big difference between understanding your enemy's intentions (or not) and having them turn out to be much less omnipotent and powerful than made out to be.  If you believe Starkid, then the Reapers go from super-badguy to the equivalent of Stormtroopers.  It's a huge let-down for the story, no matter what your POV on understanding them.

Fair enough. I was just stating an opinion. Some might have said that any explanation of the Reapers' intentions would have made them seem less powerful

Yeah, that makes sense. 

Still, in the end, the question remains - Why would Bioware want the Reapers to sound omnipotent and "beyond comprehension" (i.e. foreshadow the possibility that we can't and won't understand their intentions), only to end up giving an explanation that is simple and somewhat lacking?  The answer has to be either a) poor writing, or there is more to it.  And hoping that there's "more to it" is the basis for much of IT, it seems.

My thoughts are this. BW wanted a big baddy, the Reapers provide that, and the general rule is the more evil the villain, the more people like it. I also think that they wanted to inform the audience of the Reaper motives, and they might have felt they owed it to the fans who had stuck by them for 5 years. It is not very well done, but there are reasons in game leading up to such an ending

[Big Bad]

SubAstris wrote...

Big Bad wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Simon_Says wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Simon_Says wrote...

For three games the reapers have been the enemy. Now that the crucible is connected, a device with a function we explicitly aren't told, and you're going to take the Catalyst's word at face value? Seriously?

And why do they want us to develop on technological paths that lead to creating synthetic intelligence if synthetic intelligence is a problem?

But you aren't explicitly told that the Catalyst can be wrong either, you are just making suppositions on your initial impressions of the ending. With the endings taken at face-value, we realise the true purpose of the Crucible and what the Catalyst is, which the whole of ME3 has been leading up to.

As for your second question, it would be much easier to destroy organics and prevent them from becoming too advanced if they all operated via one system and did not diversify. They are all at the mercy of Reaper tech.

My God. I seriously hope you aren't in charge of anything important. The Catalyst is associated with the reapers. Ergo it was the enemy, real or not. Yes it's possible that the crucible gave it a change of heart but to actually act on this small hope or to take it seriously is... stupid and suicidal.

And we know the Catalyst is wrong, simply because of EDI and the Geth. Synthetics who are perfectly willing to coexist with organics.

And yes, it's obvious they left the mass relay network to make the job of exterminating civilizations more efficient. That much was already obvious. But you still haven't answered my question: the tech they left lead numerous races to developing synthetic intelligence. It's like spiking a person's drink with anthrax and then executing the person so that their disease doesn't spread to other people. It's stupid.

It has changed, and you don't just have to take its word for it, but look at the outcome of the decisions. In destroy, the Reapers do get destroyed, in synthesis, there is a physical merging of synthetic and organic DNA as shown by painted circuitry. In this respect the Catalyst kept his promises and delivered.

From evidence given to us in the ME universe, yes, the Catalyst seems wrong, at least in this cycle, EDI and the Geth can survive peacefully with organics, which is why I think the ending in this case did seem disjointed and not well done. BW tried to incorporate a common sci-fi cliche of a war between synthetics and organics into a game which didn't fit that. However, it is possible in other cycles that other synthetics would not be so peaceful; remember it only takes one rogue group of synthetics to destroy all life in the galaxy. Admittedly, this wasn't explained well in the game.

I think I answered someone else on the cost-benefits of what the Catalyst did

Wait, so you think that the writers go out of their way to contradict one of the major themes of the series (that it is not inevitable for organics and synthetics to be in conflict) in the last five minutes of the game, and that this was done on accident?

It is badly done, I agree wholeheartedly. However, I can see where BW were going with it. They wanted a spectacular ending to the series which would make people think, and that is what introducing the Catalyst did and does. I don't think the contradiction was done purposefully, and the Catalyst could technically still be right (he hasn't been proved wrong, his premises are questionable though)

I guess that we just have fundamentally incompatible views of the series, as I think that it is virtually impossible for the multiple serious thematic contradictions in the ending to have been anything but intentional.

[paxxton]

Something off-topic but I think it puts Mass Effect series into perspective.

Modifié par paxxton, 08 mai 2012 - 07:54 .