831 réponses à ce sujet

[Positronics]

Eternalsteelfan wrote...

Positronics wrote...

Eternalsteelfan wrote...

CheekyWeazel wrote...

@OP Really interesting read, thank you for writing all this down. (Need to refresh my English, didnt understand everything but i think i got about 90 % hehe)


I would really like to know what your Opinion is about the Logic of the "Starchild".

Catalyst: "The Reapers are my solution, Synthetics who kill Organics to prevent Organics from creating Synthetics who will kill Organics."

The idea that synthetics and organics are doomed  to war with each other resulting in the erradication of organic life has no empirical evidence and the history of the geth, along with the possibility of a peaceful resolution to their conflict with the quarians, directly contradicts it.

I LOLed hard at this.

1. No empirical evidence?

2.How many rogue AI's do you have to kill in the series?

3. The history of the Geth contradicts this? Err, what? The Geth did indeed rebel against their creators (rightly, yes) and nearly destroyed the Quarians, forcing them to eek out a life as scavenging nomads.

4. The Catalyst has presumably been the overseer of all the Reaper Cycles stretching back millions of years. I'm pretty sure he's seen plenty of synthetics ravaging the galaxy. It's easy to surmise thats why the first Reapers were built - to preserve organics in the face of a synthetic onslaught.

5. An AI superintelligence might look at you without hate and without pity, and simply decide that your atoms can be repurposed for something more useful.

The Catalyst offers Synthesis to avoid any distinction between synthetic life and organic.

6. And people, the Reapers are not synthetics. They are cybernetic organisms.

Again, the numbers are my own:

1. Provide the evidence.

2. One, excluding the Reapers and Eva, who was Cerberus.

3. When you are in the geth virtual world you see their history and how they chose not to erradicate the quarians when they had the chance. This doesn't contradict the Catalyst?

4. Conjecture

5. Conjecture

6. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Calling canon narrative conjecture is obnoxious. BTW, your assertion that all AI  created from here to eternity would ultimately want to be peaceful is rediculous.

What's more likely is that some will be able to get along, and some won't.Those that won't provide big problems to far less clever and sluggishly improving organics.

And no, the two are mutually exclusive. There is a difference between an entirely synthetic construct and a cybernetic organism.

[Meltemph]

It's not deus ex, it's not space magic. If you accept that the Reapers are built of synth-organic nanomachines (they are), and you accept Mass Relay FTL, it's not hard to accept that the millions-of-years hyperevolved Reaper intelligence can figure out how to use the relays to distribute new nanomachines (or attomachines) that alter the disparate DNA of the sentient species, which would have easily identifiable shapes.

Actually it is a massive leap. with-in the world of ME relays are explained, biotics are explained, reapers had a creator, what YOU are arguing that makes sense in the ME universe, is not attomachines.

I think you need to listen to the child, he specifically says NEW DNA. You are arguing that even in the ME world, that mutating DNA to the point of creating an entirely new species is as simple as a beam of light. Either they are breaking their own rules in the end or they are creating new ones, either way that is a terrible way to adjust the setting.

Modifié par Meltemph, 16 mars 2012 - 06:13 .

[Slash1667]

Exeider wrote...

great post OP.

Kei lang represented the Soldier Villian, once who is defeated with physical force. TIM represented the Intellectual Villian, one who is defeated with the mind, IE conversation, but TIM did NOT represent the Arch-Enemy, that would be the reapers, namely Harbinger.

I think and was expecting that Harbinger would show up in some sort of Reaper equivalent of EDI. The fact that EDI having an avatar, a la "Andromeda" style, I felt that it was introducing the concept of a big cybernetic Intelligence of some "large" size, fitting itself with a body to give it physicality. EDI using that body of Eva to give herself an avatar. I was expecting the final battle (if there was one) to include fighting Harbinger in one of both of the following ways (maybe even at the same time.) A) "fighting" him with the target painter, using the fleets firepower to shoot, his Larger body (his reaper self) and fighting his Avatar self, using your standard weapons.
*Extra points to harby, if the Avatar looks like your Shephard. Cliche I know, but it would be cool.*
It would making a statement that the Reapers while they hate you for what they have done, admire the raw ability for which you have done it. (this would lead credence to the indoctrination theory)
Only to have you defeat it, so harby does the next best thing and create a duplicate for himself to occupy instead of "assuming control" of your ACTUAL Shephard.

So, regardless of the nature of the endings that have been proposed, If there was a final battle, I would of thought they would of used the "NEW" things they established in the game earlier.

The idea of an intelligence taking control of an Avatar (established this in ME 2)
The use of the "Target Painter" to call upon "Fleet Firepower."

I dont' know what do you think?

-Æ

Also cliche but I would think cooler would be if Harbinger took over EDI for the final fight with Shepard. Force him to risk killing his friend to kill his enemy.

[FugitiveMind]

mmmclean wrote...

Well-written analysis, thank you!   I just wanted to point out one thing.

Eternalsteelfan wrote...

Walters' notes scrawled across loose leaf disappointed me. The ideas are clearly not fleshed out at all, strictly drawing board material, the execution we see in game is indicative of that...

I've seen this same sentiment in other threads and I think it's important to note that 'notes scrawled across loose leaf' with 'ideas... not fleshed out at all' is the exact way that document should be viewed.  It is clearly a brainstorming document, meant to be the seed of internal discussion.  Regardless of how we feel about the quality of the ending, I don't think it's fair to view this document as the last or only word written about the endnigs while Bioware was developing the game.

The conspiracy theorist in me says that the loose leaf was created AFTER the fires of infernity sprung up everywhere on the forums just to fuel them

[SNESwiggum]

Very good read. Thanks OP. How BioWare managed to screw up this simple formula in the conclusion to a trilogy I will never know.

[Meltemph]

Calling canon narrative conjecture is obnoxious. BTW, your assertion that all AI created from here to eternity would ultimately want to be peaceful is rediculous.

What's more likely is that some will be able to get along, and some won't.Those that won't provide big problems to far less clever and sluggishly improving organics.

And no, the two are mutually exclusive. There is a difference between an entirely synthetic construct and a cybernetic organism.

You are essentially arguing that meta-game knowledge of the writers is all the reason you need to accept the premise. That means it is badly put together.

[Eternalsteelfan]

mmmclean wrote...

Well-written analysis, thank you!   I just wanted to point out one thing.

Eternalsteelfan wrote...

Walters' notes scrawled across loose leaf disappointed me. The ideas are clearly not fleshed out at all, strictly drawing board material, the execution we see in game is indicative of that...

I've seen this same sentiment in other threads and I think it's important to note that 'notes scrawled across loose leaf' with 'ideas... not fleshed out at all' is the exact way that document should be viewed.  It is clearly a brainstorming document, meant to be the seed of internal discussion.  Regardless of how we feel about the quality of the ending, I don't think it's fair to view this document as the last or only word written about the endnigs while Bioware was developing the game.

I said myself that it's clearly drawing board material, that's not the issue. My problem is that it's still in that stage as it's implemented in the game.

[Edje Edgar]

Ghurshog wrote...

Eternalsteelfan wrote...

The Crucible isn't an example of deus ex machina. Again, we know all along that the Crucible's function is to stop the Reapers, it's introduced at the beginning of the story, it's importance is reinforced throughout, and it's function during the climax is in line with what is expected. An example of Mass Effect ending with deus ex machina would be: the Reapers win the battle of Earth and are seemingly unstoppable, suddenly, and with no previous justification, an even more advanced race emerges from deep space and destroys the Reapers, saving Earth. The difference is obvious; one is a clearly defined plot device, the other is a magical fix with no precedent in the story.

While factually correct, I believe you havemissed the point.

The blatant use of the ending 'themes' from Deus Ex's ending is a point of contention and the presention simulaties to Deus Ex.

Regardless what the technical terminology is I played all three Deus Ex games when the latest came out and are fairly fresh in my memory. ME3 uses the formula/themes Deus Ex used. 

I can see where the OP is coming from with his argument, the crucible isn't so much a Deus Ex machina in a sense that it's function and existence are known to us pretty much from the start. I doubt anyone saw it's use coming though, which leads to my following point:

People refer to the starchild as the deus ex machina, which he is in a very literal sense aswell (god from the machine). His presence, or even something of his nature hadn't been refered to at all yet.

[TheKingofRedLions]

This was an excellent post.

Cheers.

[Eternalsteelfan]

Positronics wrote...

Eternalsteelfan wrote...

Positronics wrote...

Eternalsteelfan wrote...

CheekyWeazel wrote...

@OP Really interesting read, thank you for writing all this down. (Need to refresh my English, didnt understand everything but i think i got about 90 % hehe)


I would really like to know what your Opinion is about the Logic of the "Starchild".

Catalyst: "The Reapers are my solution, Synthetics who kill Organics to prevent Organics from creating Synthetics who will kill Organics."

The idea that synthetics and organics are doomed  to war with each other resulting in the erradication of organic life has no empirical evidence and the history of the geth, along with the possibility of a peaceful resolution to their conflict with the quarians, directly contradicts it.

I LOLed hard at this.

1. No empirical evidence?

2.How many rogue AI's do you have to kill in the series?

3. The history of the Geth contradicts this? Err, what? The Geth did indeed rebel against their creators (rightly, yes) and nearly destroyed the Quarians, forcing them to eek out a life as scavenging nomads.

4. The Catalyst has presumably been the overseer of all the Reaper Cycles stretching back millions of years. I'm pretty sure he's seen plenty of synthetics ravaging the galaxy. It's easy to surmise thats why the first Reapers were built - to preserve organics in the face of a synthetic onslaught.

5. An AI superintelligence might look at you without hate and without pity, and simply decide that your atoms can be repurposed for something more useful.

The Catalyst offers Synthesis to avoid any distinction between synthetic life and organic.

6. And people, the Reapers are not synthetics. They are cybernetic organisms.

Again, the numbers are my own:

1. Provide the evidence.

2. One, excluding the Reapers and Eva, who was Cerberus.

3. When you are in the geth virtual world you see their history and how they chose not to erradicate the quarians when they had the chance. This doesn't contradict the Catalyst?

4. Conjecture

5. Conjecture

6. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Calling canon narrative conjecture is obnoxious. BTW, your assertion that all AI  created from here to eternity would ultimately want to be peaceful is rediculous.

What's more likely is that some will be able to get along, and some won't.Those that won't provide big problems to far less clever and sluggishly improving organics.

And no, the two are mutually exclusive. There is a difference between an entirely synthetic construct and a cybernetic organism.

The points I have listed as 4 and 5 are conjecture, unless you can provide something to the contrary. I also did not make any assertion about "all AI from here to eternity", I try to refrain from such boisterous generalizations, I merely pointed out that the Catalyst was proven wrong by the geth.

[Baronesa]

Positronics wrote...

Eternalsteelfan wrote...

Positronics wrote...

Eternalsteelfan wrote...

CheekyWeazel wrote...

@OP Really interesting read, thank you for writing all this down. (Need to refresh my English, didnt understand everything but i think i got about 90 % hehe)


I would really like to know what your Opinion is about the Logic of the "Starchild".

Catalyst: "The Reapers are my solution, Synthetics who kill Organics to prevent Organics from creating Synthetics who will kill Organics."

The idea that synthetics and organics are doomed  to war with each other resulting in the erradication of organic life has no empirical evidence and the history of the geth, along with the possibility of a peaceful resolution to their conflict with the quarians, directly contradicts it.

I LOLed hard at this.

1. No empirical evidence?

2.How many rogue AI's do you have to kill in the series?

3. The history of the Geth contradicts this? Err, what? The Geth did indeed rebel against their creators (rightly, yes) and nearly destroyed the Quarians, forcing them to eek out a life as scavenging nomads.

4. The Catalyst has presumably been the overseer of all the Reaper Cycles stretching back millions of years. I'm pretty sure he's seen plenty of synthetics ravaging the galaxy. It's easy to surmise thats why the first Reapers were built - to preserve organics in the face of a synthetic onslaught.

5. An AI superintelligence might look at you without hate and without pity, and simply decide that your atoms can be repurposed for something more useful.

The Catalyst offers Synthesis to avoid any distinction between synthetic life and organic.

6. And people, the Reapers are not synthetics. They are cybernetic organisms.

Again, the numbers are my own:

1. Provide the evidence.

2. One, excluding the Reapers and Eva, who was Cerberus.

3. When you are in the geth virtual world you see their history and how they chose not to erradicate the quarians when they had the chance. This doesn't contradict the Catalyst?

4. Conjecture

5. Conjecture

6. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Calling canon narrative conjecture is obnoxious. BTW, your assertion that all AI  created from here to eternity would ultimately want to be peaceful is rediculous.

What's more likely is that some will be able to get along, and some won't.Those that won't provide big problems to far less clever and sluggishly improving organics.

And no, the two are mutually exclusive. There is a difference between an entirely synthetic construct and a cybernetic organism.

Moving the goalpost... why does every synthetic have to be peaceful in order to contradict the starchild?

We can make the same example using organics.. and oh boy... let's talk about the genocides commited by organics not only against others (Genophage) but against themselves?

Because there is a potential danger that something MAY happen, does not make it so.


You have examples, EDI, the Geth... even the scared AI of the first game... the one stealing money? it didn't wanted to harm anyone but simply leave, until it felt cornered and did exactly as every other being ina  situation like that.

[Slash1667]

Eternalsteelfan wrote...

CheekyWeazel wrote...

@OP Really interesting read, thank you for writing all this down. (Need to refresh my English, didnt understand everything but i think i got about 90 % hehe)


I would really like to know what your Opinion is about the Logic of the "Starchild".

Catalyst: "The Reapers are my solution, Synthetics who kill Organics to prevent Organics from creating Synthetics who will kill Organics."

The idea that synthetics and organics are doomed  to war with each other resulting in the erradication of organic life has no empirical evidence and the history of the geth, along with the possibility of a peaceful resolution to their conflict with the quarians, directly contradicts it.

Actually the catalyst DOES have empirical evidence for the the synthetics wiping out the organics. It's biased and out-dated though. The evidence being HIS reapers. Every 50,000 years synthetic DO rise up and wipe out organic life.

Honestly one of the biggest of MANY problems with the ending is the explaination of what the reapers do. Harvesting the organics and adding them to the reapers. They just went from some god-awful super-powerful machine race to the Borg

[KillSlash45]

Why does shepherd need to be a tragic hero to require a tragic end?

I always got the feeling that if the galaxy manages to beat the reapers, even the overcomes-the-impossible Sheperd will still not come out of this okay.

[Eternalsteelfan]

KillSlash45 wrote...

Why does shepherd need to be a tragic hero to require a tragic end?

I always got the feeling that if the galaxy manages to beat the reapers, even the overcomes-the-impossible Sheperd will still not come out of this okay.

That isn't what I said.

[Lord_Nikon]

Great Read OP.

[Esoretal]

Yes. Thank you.

[Penitent]

Wow, OP. I had very similar thoughts.

http://social.biowar...ndex/10066818/1

[KillSlash45]

Eternalsteelfan wrote...

KillSlash45 wrote...

Why does shepherd need to be a tragic hero to require a tragic end?

I always got the feeling that if the galaxy manages to beat the reapers, even the overcomes-the-impossible Sheperd will still not come out of this okay.

That isn't what I said.

Seems to be implied, though. 
Anyways,
The whole overaching plot of the galaxy ending reapers kind of sets up for the conclusion that Shepherd has to die to save the universe. All the previous over-coming-the-impossible scenarious pale in comparison to this one. At least that's how I see it.

Modifié par KillSlash45, 16 mars 2012 - 06:52 .

[Esoretal]

Slash1667 wrote...

Eternalsteelfan wrote...

CheekyWeazel wrote...

@OP Really interesting read, thank you for writing all this down. (Need to refresh my English, didnt understand everything but i think i got about 90 % hehe)


I would really like to know what your Opinion is about the Logic of the "Starchild".

Catalyst: "The Reapers are my solution, Synthetics who kill Organics to prevent Organics from creating Synthetics who will kill Organics."

The idea that synthetics and organics are doomed  to war with each other resulting in the erradication of organic life has no empirical evidence and the history of the geth, along with the possibility of a peaceful resolution to their conflict with the quarians, directly contradicts it.

Actually the catalyst DOES have empirical evidence for the the synthetics wiping out the organics. It's biased and out-dated though. The evidence being HIS reapers. Every 50,000 years synthetic DO rise up and wipe out organic life.

Honestly one of the biggest of MANY problems with the ending is the explaination of what the reapers do. Harvesting the organics and adding them to the reapers. They just went from some god-awful super-powerful machine race to the Borg

I honestly thought that the Reapers "assimilating" (LOL) certain species was already a plot point, considering the husked versions of several races we fight, and the fact that they needed human DNA to build the Reaper larva at the end of ME2. Also, the Codex talks about what the Reapers do with the races they take. 

[Edje Edgar]

KillSlash45 wrote...

Eternalsteelfan wrote...

KillSlash45 wrote...

Why does shepherd need to be a tragic hero to require a tragic end?

I always got the feeling that if the galaxy manages to beat the reapers, even the overcomes-the-impossible Sheperd will still not come out of this okay.

That isn't what I said.

Seems to be implied, though. 
Anyways,
The whole overaching plot of the galaxy ending reapers kind of sets up for the conclusion that Shepherd has to die to save the universe. All the pervious over-coming-the-impossible scenarious pale in comparison to this one. At least that's how I see it.

I think he gave a clear example of what a tragic hero is, and what isn't.

[KillSlash45]

Edje Edgar wrote...

KillSlash45 wrote...

Eternalsteelfan wrote...

KillSlash45 wrote...

Why does shepherd need to be a tragic hero to require a tragic end?

I always got the feeling that if the galaxy manages to beat the reapers, even the overcomes-the-impossible Sheperd will still not come out of this okay.

That isn't what I said.

Seems to be implied, though. 
Anyways,
The whole overaching plot of the galaxy ending reapers kind of sets up for the conclusion that Shepherd has to die to save the universe. All the pervious over-coming-the-impossible scenarious pale in comparison to this one. At least that's how I see it.

I think he gave a clear example of what a tragic hero is, and what isn't.

Obviously, what's your point?

[pikey1969]

The Original Post is the ONLY post in this entire forum that's against the ending, that's actually coherent and properly sounded.

I'd hate to be the douc** bag, but every other thread/opinions in this forum that's getting all the attention and publicity is exactly why 'fix the ending' movement is doomed to fail.

ps. The child's play movement has been a beautiful thing to see as well, the only other gem in this mess.

Modifié par pikey1969, 16 mars 2012 - 07:02 .

[Edje Edgar]

KillSlash45 wrote...

Edje Edgar wrote...

KillSlash45 wrote...

Eternalsteelfan wrote...

KillSlash45 wrote...

Why does shepherd need to be a tragic hero to require a tragic end?

I always got the feeling that if the galaxy manages to beat the reapers, even the overcomes-the-impossible Sheperd will still not come out of this okay.

That isn't what I said.

Seems to be implied, though. 
Anyways,
The whole overaching plot of the galaxy ending reapers kind of sets up for the conclusion that Shepherd has to die to save the universe. All the pervious over-coming-the-impossible scenarious pale in comparison to this one. At least that's how I see it.

I think he gave a clear example of what a tragic hero is, and what isn't.

Obviously, what's your point?

That your assumption based on and I quote: "my feeling" is inferior to his statement based on a describing approaching a coherent narative.

Or simply put, a tragic ending befits a tragic hero. Having Will Smith die at the end of independence day is stupid, but having the drunk die isn't. One is a tragic character, the other isn't.

[Eternalsteelfan]

KillSlash45 wrote...

Edje Edgar wrote...

KillSlash45 wrote...

Eternalsteelfan wrote...

KillSlash45 wrote...

Why does shepherd need to be a tragic hero to require a tragic end?

I always got the feeling that if the galaxy manages to beat the reapers, even the overcomes-the-impossible Sheperd will still not come out of this okay.

That isn't what I said.

Seems to be implied, though. 
Anyways,
The whole overaching plot of the galaxy ending reapers kind of sets up for the conclusion that Shepherd has to die to save the universe. All the pervious over-coming-the-impossible scenarious pale in comparison to this one. At least that's how I see it.

I think he gave a clear example of what a tragic hero is, and what isn't.

Obviously, what's your point?

My own point was the possibility of Shepherd surviving shouldn't be excluded, as the possibility of death shouldn't either. He isn't a tragic hero as some have claimed, so it's less cut and dry than "Shepherd has to die".

[KillSlash45]

Edje Edgar wrote...

KillSlash45 wrote...

Edje Edgar wrote...

KillSlash45 wrote...

Eternalsteelfan wrote...

KillSlash45 wrote...

Why does shepherd need to be a tragic hero to require a tragic end?

I always got the feeling that if the galaxy manages to beat the reapers, even the overcomes-the-impossible Sheperd will still not come out of this okay.

That isn't what I said.

Seems to be implied, though. 
Anyways,
The whole overaching plot of the galaxy ending reapers kind of sets up for the conclusion that Shepherd has to die to save the universe. All the pervious over-coming-the-impossible scenarious pale in comparison to this one. At least that's how I see it.

I think he gave a clear example of what a tragic hero is, and what isn't.

Obviously, what's your point?

That your assumption based on and I quote: "my feeling" is inferior to his statement based on a describing approaching a coherent narative.

Or simply put, a tragic ending befits a tragic hero. Having Will Smith die at the end of independence day is stupid, but having the drunk die isn't. One is a tragic character, the other isn't.

So calling my opinion inferior. Okay. Moving past that. I am at a loss as to why you pointed out that he gave a clear example of what a tragic hero is and what isn't is in any way related to my post.

That leads back to my original question,  why does Sheperd have to be a tragic hero to require a tragic end? Only characters that are tragic can have an innevitable demise? Even when the rest of the plot suggests otherwise?

Having a non-tragic hero die at the end does not make it an incoherent narrative.