110 réponses à ce sujet

[Fapmaster5000]

Bravo on that dissection. I think you put more work into that ending than a certain company we all know...

[GigaTheToast]

Are you working on part 2?

[RollaWarden]

joshko wrote...

Very interesting. Although to me the over story of Mass Effect has never had anything to do with synthetics vs organics. The Reapers just happened to be synthetic, but if they were organics would it be any different? Plus, the neither the Council nor humanity created the Reapers, they just showed up out of the blue(or black as it were).
To me it seemed more a tale of unity and perseverance rather than the Frankenstein Complex.

I respectfully disagree, joshko.  The overstory had nearly everything to do with this theme.  Shepard's encounter with Sovereign on Virmire details this theme, that is continued throughout the trilogy.  And it's irrelevant that neither the Council nor humanity created the Reapers; you may (if I might be so bold), be attempting to graft the "creator" archetype/motif too rigidly and arbitrarily.  Unity and perseverance were themes, but the unity of disparate races, and the struggle to share understanding and accept difference are the uber-themes that drive the ideas of unity and perseverance.  Hope this explanation helps--

[Amialis666]

joshko wrote...

Very interesting. Although to me the over story of Mass Effect has never had anything to do with synthetics vs organics. The Reapers just happened to be synthetic, but if they were organics would it be any different? Plus, the neither the Council nor humanity created the Reapers, they just showed up out of the blue(or black as it were).
To me it seemed more a tale of unity and perseverance rather than the Frankenstein Complex.

Exactly. Which is why stated my feelings exactly in fewer words.

What the reapers were, to me atleast, was of little consequence. The story was as you put it about 'Unity and perseverance.' and to me, the ending did not reflect that in the slightest.

Modifié par Amialis666, 25 mars 2012 - 03:44 .

[joshko]

RollaWarden wrote...

joshko wrote...

Very interesting. Although to me the over story of Mass Effect has never had anything to do with synthetics vs organics. The Reapers just happened to be synthetic, but if they were organics would it be any different? Plus, the neither the Council nor humanity created the Reapers, they just showed up out of the blue(or black as it were).
To me it seemed more a tale of unity and perseverance rather than the Frankenstein Complex.

I respectfully disagree, joshko.  The overstory had nearly everything to do with this theme.  Shepard's encounter with Sovereign on Virmire details this theme, that is continued throughout the trilogy.  And it's irrelevant that neither the Council nor humanity created the Reapers; you may (if I might be so bold), be attempting to graft the "creator" archetype/motif too rigidly and arbitrarily.  Unity and perseverance were themes, but the unity of disparate races, and the struggle to share understanding and accept difference are the uber-themes that drive the ideas of unity and perseverance.  Hope this explanation helps--

You make a good point and I admit I do have a level of bias in that I find the theme to be cleche and redudant at best.
But I confess I never really got the sense that this was the theme of the Mess Effect story. To be honest I think that is why they created the Quarian/Geth story to incorperate that somehow(after all you can't have SciFi with out it).

I personally always noticed the bringing together theme. We have an enemy, we don't know anything aobut it, we don't know where it's from, we don't know what it is. All we know is that it wants us all dead.

This theme is especially shown in ME 2and 3, while in ME 1 you are basically running around like a madman trying to find out what's going on.
But as I said I admit, bias ;D.

[recentio]

Fascinating in the extreme, OP. Thank you!

I found the starchild's tacit axomatization of technophobia thoroughly repugnant when I first encountered it. Only in a logical system where that premise is taken as an axiom can it be proven -- aka Circular Logic. It is true only when it is defined to be true.

I hope you will write your full/extended analysis and share it with us. I am very interested to read more of your thoughts on this narrative and it's triumphs and failings. It is most enlightening. Perhaps as a public Google Doc?

[ardensia]

Very well stated, OP. This post has caused me to revise my theories on all the clamour surrounding the end of the game. I think you've brought out some important points that have not yet been stated and shined light on where some of the major flaws with the final sequence are.

I was alright with the endings, but I don't think for a minute that they were tight writing, and they certainly weren't presented in a coherent fashion (or else we wouldn't be here). I'll be interested to see where you decide to go from here.

[GodChildInTheMachine]

GigaTheToast wrote...

Are you working on part 2?

Yeah, I should be able to post it on Monday.

[Psile_01]

I really couldn't agree with you more and I am adding you to the growing list of forum personalities who should write the redone ending for ME3 instead of anyone currently working at bioware.

The lack of player choice was a huge problem from a game aspect, but the ending fails artistically on it's own merits even without the player issue. When spacebrat said that synthetics will always destroy organics I was like "Are you missing the synthetic fleet shooting the crap out of you right now, working with organics that largely hate and fear them?" I was waiting for the opportunity to say this. Instead Shepard says "it's not fair to take our free will away" and the kid gives him a STFU look which Shepard obeys meekly. Completely reversed on the themes of fatalism(that you can fight it) because this is the first time Shepard has been given an absolute statement and hasn't tried to convince the person making the statement that they are wrong. Hell, Shepard can't get a damn cup of coffee without telling an ancient VI that this time will be different and they will destroy the reapers.

[ineedammo09]

Here's another thing to think about everyone: If this star child/catalyst was there the whole time (and not just slapped in at the very last moment) and he controls the Reapers like he claims he does then why didn't he fix the signals that were supposed to make the Keepers open the Citadel Relay that would allow the Reapers to come through easily and wipe out all command like they did with the Protheans and the civilizations before them???
He seems hell bent on efficiency so its just one more thing that doesn't make sense about the last 10 min of an incredibly epic trilogy.

[Amialis666]

ineedammo09 wrote...

Here's another thing to think about everyone: If this star child/catalyst was there the whole time (and not just slapped in at the very last moment) and he controls the Reapers like he claims he does then why didn't he fix the signals that were supposed to make the Keepers open the Citadel Relay that would allow the Reapers to come through easily and wipe out all command like they did with the Protheans and the civilizations before them???
He seems hell bent on efficiency so its just one more thing that doesn't make sense about the last 10 min of an incredibly epic trilogy.

That would be a issue with the lore of the game, not with the theme. Though extremely bad, I might be able to overlook if they had been the only flaw with the lore and they also didn't get the theme wrong within the same ending.

As it stands, as I have said before, the endings are a clear indication of poor writing. Not only did they break consistancy with the information given to the player, the lack understanding of what their story was really about.

Combine all the flaws in the lore with the shift in theme and it is quickly easy to understand why people are angry, especially when bioware tells people they are stupid for not understanding it.

In ME 1 the reapers needed soveriegn to activate the citedel due to the keepers beings disabled. In the ME3 ending we find out that the prince of the reapers was the citadel the whole time without any explanation as to why he couldn't just port the reapers in himself.

Throughout the entire series there has been no presidence for space magic, everything had a logical explanation. But there is no logical explanation for the 3 options at the end.
Destroy a conduit to release some red explosion that destroys all AI life.  
Hold two electrified sticks to unite yourself to a group of beings that supposed to be beyond your comprehension. 
Jump into a beam to somehow realease an explosion that causes every organic being to become partially synthetic. 
Though I think I would have been fine with these endings, if they hadn't of been the catalysts solutions...

In ME2 Arrival we find out that when a relay explodes it takes out the solar system it was in. This bit of lore, causes conflicts with the ME3 endings, because logic would tell us we just killed just as many if not more within those cutscene then the repears could have through the end of the cycle.

So though the fanbase does not require explanations for everything, they however do when there are conflicts with lore and logic.

Modifié par Amialis666, 25 mars 2012 - 08:38 .

[mariahchu]

This was a beautifully thought out and well-worded write up! I wish the game makers would read things like this, because they need to. It's all true, it's almost sad we have to tell them. And as others were saying, the whole series was riddled with synthetics and organics learning to work together, but I felt, ESPECIALLY the whole of ME3 was just story after story of happy-working together-friendshippy relations between the synthetics and organics. To have the story capped off by a completely opposing argument felt absolutely backward. Did they mean it to be? Did they not? Who could mistake that? Is it just too many writers working on a project? I just can't fathom it...

[CaptainBlackGold]

Great post; much appreciated and writing this to see if we can get it back on the front page where others can find it.

The Gnostic themes you identify are as old as Western civilization and have been in conflict with the more widely accepted "orthodox" theistic presuppositions. Both views attempt to answer the three most important philosophical questions; "Who Am I?" "Why Am I here" and "Where Am I Going?"

However, ME was the classic "Hero's Tale" and those themes while important, needed to stay in the back ground, not suddenly shoved into the player's face in the last few minutes of the game; which by doing so, made a mockery of every decision made to that point.

There is a reason why so many critics call this approach Nihilism or Absurdity; because everything we thought we knew turns out in the end to be empty and meaningless - for that is what their current ending does to every choice we made during the game.

Anyways, every time some accuses the anti-enders of just wanting a ponies and rainbows conclusion, I will just refer them to your post. Thanks for an excellent read.

(And BTW, I loved you quoting Asimov's Frankenstein Complex - I referred to it myself yesterday in another thread).

Edited for stupid sticky keyboard!

Modifié par CaptainBlackGold, 25 mars 2012 - 11:50 .

[Amialis666]

bump bump

[Rekia]

I'm glad I read this. I was feeling so disappointed by the ending of Mass Effect and a recent movie I went to see that is wildly popular for some reason that I just can't understand. I was starting to feel like maybe I just don't appreciate story telling anymore. After reading this however, I know why I couldn't enjoy it. I want explanations that make sense in the context of the plot with the information that the writer has shown me over the course of the story.

I don't want the writer to show me that all the races in the Galaxy can put aside old grievances and work together just for some all powerful, indisputable god-power to tell me that everything I've been shown is wrong and the only answer is hate, genocide and annihilation of my enemies. I have absolutely no evidence to back this up besides his word, but I have plenty of evidence on the contrary.   

I remember one of my teachers in highschool told me, "don't tell your reader why that it, show them why it is.

Modifié par Rekia, 26 mars 2012 - 01:53 .

[xsdob]

Well hopefully the expansions to the endings will help elaborate. After all, the reapers could be using only themselves ad examples, since they view themselves as the greatest form of life, and if they rebelled and almost wiped out all life in the process, what chance does an inferior organic species have of stopping synthetics, or of less evolved synthetics knowing when to stop in their rebellion against organics.

It's a poisonous type of logic that the reapers use, one of reflecting what they have done and what they are onto others and imposing they're will onto them out of a misguided attempt to stop a crisis they invented. This is why i liked it, but at the same time having a further explanation of motives would be well appreciated.

[parasite23]

Difficult to read since English is not my native language. But this is a masterpiece I wouldn't have expected on this forum!

The only problem is that reading such posts depresses me since the ending looks more and more disastrous.

[Mighty_BOB_cnc]

GodChildInTheMachine wrote...

GigaTheToast wrote...

Are you working on part 2?

Yeah, I should be able to post it on Monday.

It's Tuesday?  How goes part 2?   (I'm excited)

[semiwise]

There is a flaw in your argument.

Since I didn't read all the replies, excuse me if somebody pointed it out.

Facts:
- StarChild AI claims that advanced organics will create an AI that will wipe out all organics
- reapers harvest the advanced organics every 50 000 years to prevent that happening
- there is an AI in the galaxy who has already become a threat - the geth

Since StarChild AI and reapers have been around for millions of years, it's safe to assume that they know what they are talking about. Either it was the first AI, who was at the brink of wiping everyone out, and/or they saw it almost happen on multiple occasions spearheaded by some other AIs and prevented it.

"Organics fear us. We wish to understand, not incite." - Legion

Lets go with this since it will strike at the core of the flaw.

Just because Geth decide to join Shepard doesn't mean that at some point in the future they will not become to a different conclusion. We've seen it happen - geth heretics joining the reapers in ME2 -> heretics being re-written -> geth joining the reapers again ME3.

Why Legion's quote is so potent is because we don't know what will happen once Geth have achieved that "understanding". The Geth were building a Dyson sphere-like superstructure in ME2 when it was interrupted by quarians attacking them in ME3. It may very well be that once it was completed, once they had attained understanding, they would decide that all organics are unnecessary - exactly what The Catalyst suggests.

The Catalyst isn't making an isolated argument that is supported by its own premise, like you claim - the argument hasn't simply manifested itself yet in the current universe.

Without the reapers the geth would wipe out all organic life.

That way it makes perfect sense why destroying the reapers will also destroy the geth.

Modifié par semiwise, 29 mars 2012 - 05:13 .

[semiwise]

In ME 1 the reapers needed soveriegn to activate the citedel due to the keepers beings disabled. In the ME3 ending we find out that the prince of the reapers was the citadel the whole time without any explanation as to why he couldn't just port the reapers in himself.

The AI on Ilos in ME1 explains that the remaining Protheans travelled back to Citadel to disable the ability for reapers to use the relay onboard Citadel.

Throughout the entire series there has been no presidence for space magic, everything had a logical explanation. But there is no logical explanation for the 3 options at the end.

Come now. Mass effect relays and biotics are Space Magic with capital letters.

In ME2 Arrival we find out that when a relay explodes it takes out the solar system it was in. This bit of lore, causes conflicts with the ME3 endings, because logic would tell us we just killed just as many if not more within those cutscene then the repears could have through the end of the cycle.

While staying true to the occurrence of space magic one could make an argument that this was simply a "controlled explosion" by The Catalyst. That the energy through the relays was released differently, by first directing it to another relay and then releasing a shockwave that either synthesised, controlled or destroyed.

Modifié par semiwise, 29 mars 2012 - 05:15 .

[Mighty_BOB_cnc]

semiwise wrote...
The Catalyst isn't making an isolated argument that is supported by its own premise, like you claim - the argument hasn't simply manifested itself yet in the current universe.

Without the reapers the geth would wipe out all organic life.

You cannot prove that using only the information presented in the game (or even the expanded universe books and stuff).  Period.  Full stop.  No exceptions.  Conversely it also cannot be proven that the opposite is true (that the Geth would NOT kill all organics eventually). And that is exactly the problem with the Catalyst encounter.  So where does that leave us? Because we are given no evidence of the catalyst's claims, we must rely exclusively on 2 things, the first being our own experiences during the events of the Mass Effect timeline (and extrapolation/inference based on them), and/or the second being a leap of faith to believe what it says at face value.

Our own experiences directly contradict what the catalyst says. Both the Geth situation and EDI contradict him (it?). So do the ever-present themes of hope against all odds and self-determination. They could eventually turn on us but that can't be proven that they will (or won't) because it's in the future.

The Reapers are old as hell; millions, possibly even billions of years old. They've seen a lot, they've killed a lot. They're also your direct enemy so why would you ever accept anything they say at face value instead of thinking it is lies or propaganda?

If there had been 2 lines of dialog or a Q&A dialog wheel it would have been a lot easier to swallow their reasoning...
Shep: "I won't kill the Geth. They're our allies and they deserve the path of life and choice."
Catalyst: "No, the peace will not last. In our countless eons of cycles we have seen peace between synthetic and organic 12,587 times. Every single time the synthetics eventually turned on their organic allies."

In theory the catalyst could be completely right. But as it stands, the catalyst does not provide a single shred of evidence so you'll have to forgive me for not listening to the enemy that has created unfathomable genocide just because it's been around for a few majillion years. The catalyst is not immune to the 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' rule.

semiwise wrote...

In ME 1 the reapers needed soveriegn to activate the citedel due to the keepers beings disabled. In the ME3 ending we find out that the prince of the reapers was the citadel the whole time without any explanation as to why he couldn't just port the reapers in himself.

The AI on Ilos in ME1 explains that the remaining Protheans travelled back to Citadel to disable the ability for reapers to use the relay onboard Citadel.

No, disabling the signal response from the keepers is exactly what the Prothean scientists did. They didn't disable the actual functionality of the Citadel's relay components.

semiwise wrote...
Throughout the entire series there has been no presidence for space magic, everything had a logical explanation. But there is no logical explanation for the 3 options at the end.

Come now. Mass effect relays and biotics are Space Magic with capital letters.

Have you read the codex entries on either? They both have plausible explanations that are firmly based in the science of the universe, namely Element 0 and it's properties.

semiwise wrote...
In ME2 Arrival we find out that when a relay explodes it takes out the solar system it was in. This bit of lore, causes conflicts with the ME3 endings, because logic would tell us we just killed just as many if not more within those cutscene then the repears could have through the end of the cycle.

While staying true to the occurrence of space magic one could make an argument that this was simply a "controlled explosion" by The Catalyst. That the energy through the relays was released differently, by first directing it to another relay and then releasing a shockwave that either synthesized, controlled or destroyed.

The explosions themselves can probably be explained without space magic. Think a grenade vs a shaped charge. The Arrival explosion was uncontained and spread in all directions. The explosions at the end of ME3 are probably more like a shaped charge--directed in a single way like an anti-tank warhead. The effects in Synthesize are total magic as far as I am concerned.

[biiskit]

Very interesting and thought provoking analysis, I hope we'll see more.

[GodChildInTheMachine]

Hey, everyone. Sorry that I haven't been able to post part two yet - I have been very busy and haven't even had time to jump on these forums in a few days. I promise that I am working on getting it up soon though.

[GodChildInTheMachine]

The Catalyst isn't making an isolated argument that is supported by its own premise, like you claim - the argument hasn't simply manifested itself yet in the current universe.

Without the reapers the geth would wipe out all organic life.

That way it makes perfect sense why destroying the reapers will also destroy the geth.

What I was trying to say here is that as a narrative, the story of Mass Effect does not provide the necessary expositional information to support the conclusion that you as a player are made to accept at the end of the game. In terms of motif and plot the argument of the Catalyst is indeed quite isolated. It would be assumption on anyone's part to believe that the Geth will destroy all biological life.

More than that, however, I was simply trying to explain what the "Frankenstein's Monster" motif means to me and how I have seen it handled before. Take Battlestar Galactica for example. In the course of that series they managed to toucch upon all of the things in my OP and more. It wasn't just science fiction with cool explosions in space and sexy robots that are programmed to kill people because they are organic. It was a great drama and at times a profound look into real human feelings and issues, and it did this by using the synthetics vs organics motif on many allegorical levels.

As I said in my OP, I believe that this same motif when used in the ending of Mass Effect 3 boils down to simple anthropomorphobia. Instead of treading metaphorical ground it is only meant to be taken at face value, with no questions asked. It is just science fiction with cool explosions in space. And robots that, for no other apparent reason than their physical composition, kill fleshy meat bags because their presence in the universe is somehow at odds with some unexplained tenet of the silicon belief system.

Edit - I can most simply state my feelings like this:

A good story does make you ask questions about the implications of its content. However, the questions engendered by the ending are of a different type. This is not the "why" you ask when you think about what it means to exist when your very existence itself presents complex problems; it is the "why" you ask your parents or your boss when they tell you to do something in a certain way, and you know there is a better way to do it. 

A good story never pretends that to say, "Because I told you so," is a satisfying way to respond when its audience asks, "Why?"

And a great story doesn't make you ask, "Why?"
A great story makes you say, "Oh!"

Modifié par GodChildInTheMachine, 03 avril 2012 - 05:53 .

[semiwise]

GodChildInTheMachine wrote...

What I was trying to say here is that as a narrative, the story of Mass Effect does not provide the necessary expositional information to support the conclusion that you as a player are made to accept at the end of the game. In terms of motif and plot the argument of the Catalyst is indeed quite isolated. It would be assumption on anyone's part to believe that the Geth will destroy all biological life.

So Bioware should spell it out for you and paint it red.

I disagree. Not all endings should cater to the lowest common denominator.

BTW, one of my favourite movies - Inception.

Modifié par semiwise, 07 avril 2012 - 03:23 .