110 réponses à ce sujet

[semiwise]

Mighty_BOB_cnc wrote...

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.

Yes I can - Star Child AI says so.
You simply presume that the AI "LIES" for some unknown purpose. Or Bioware is making the Star Child lie for some unknown purpose.

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?

Why would it matter. Shepard wants to defeat the reapers and Star Child simply tells you what the repercussions will be.

It's not trying to convince Shepard otherwise.

What does the Star Child gain by lying to Shepard? Nothing.

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."

I agree.

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.

Therefore the AI must be a liar.

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.

No. What I meant was that there is a relay onboard Citadel - the relay in the Citadel Presidium. That is how reapers took control of the Citadel every time and that is why Saren goes to the Citadel in ME1. That is what the remaining protheans disabled.

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.

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.

Lifting people into the air and travelling instantly from one part of galaxy to another is still magic.

Your argument why the synthesize ending is suddenly space magic is because you haven't gotten a letter of explanation or a codex entry from Bioware.

Modifié par semiwise, 07 avril 2012 - 12:49 .

[semiwise]

#empty#

Modifié par semiwise, 07 avril 2012 - 12:10 .

[binarymonkey86]

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--

I disagree with you RollaWarden. Not about what either you or joshko thinks are the true themes of the overall ME story. But about the argument that the reapers has anything to do with the Frankensteins Monster theme. As it has been pointed out they were not created by us or any known civilization (living or extinct). Frankly we don't really know much about them at all. Where as the Geth subplot is a pretty clear cut use of the Frankensteins Monster theme.

The Reapers are far closer analogues to eldritch abominations IMO. You know, the old gods, space cthulhu. They are an unknowable, immensly powerful, alien foe (who's proximity can drive you mad) and without any real reedeming qualities. An enemy that you can set up without having to worry about any type of morality issus. You know, if it is the right and proper thing to fight against them. This makes it much easier to play up the themes of unity of disparate races and all that since we don't need to worry about the worthiness of our cause. We can be sure we are the good guy's if our foes are of this type. They are thus a very different thing from a Frankenstains monster type of foe.

Modifié par binarymonkey86, 07 avril 2012 - 02:30 .

[GodChildInTheMachine]

semiwise wrote...

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.

As you can probably tell, I don't count myself among the lowest common denominator. There is a pretty big difference between "spelling everything out" and not violating the previously established direction of narrative. Regardless, that's not really the point I was trying to make.

You could explain anything you want to about the ending and it wouldn't change it thematically or make it any more consistent with the established motifs of Mass Effect.

Not sure why you think Inception is relevant, but I'll bite. I assume that your point is that endings which are open to interpreatation can be good when handled correctly. I would agree. There is almost no common ground between Inception and Mass Effect, however.

One of the major issues that Inception grapples with is the nature of reality. Having an ending in which you are forced to question the reality of the film's events is only fitting. It is a constant motif throughout the rest of the movie.

Inception, when scrutinized, isn't any less ridiculous than the ending of Mass Effect 3. However, it succeeds as a piece of fiction because it lays down a system of rules or a framework for its universe, and it stays true to them. The world doesn't really bear close inspection; when you start to ask questions about why things happen the way they do, you are confronted with the fact that the film isn't quite as profound or intelligent as it is letting on. Instead, its sophistication and intelligence come in its sleight of hand. Like a good magician, it misdirects the audience away from the lines of thought and perception that would lead them to understand that they are being tricked. It lets the audience do the work; they willingly support the illusion. Mass Effect 3 fumbles this illusion and does not properly encourage the natural proclivity of its audience to believe.

To bring up an example which has more to do with the Frankenstein's Monster motif, I'll point you back to Bladerunner. This is a classic example of created life rebelling against its creator. The difference is that it encourages the right kind of speculation; it engenders questions whose implications reach far beyond the trappings of the film itself. Are Replicants people, or property? Do they have souls or free will? What is it to be human or self aware? The society of future L.A. treats Replicants as merely machines, executing them when they are deemed a threat to human life.

They take the exact same stance that the Catalyst does; an attitude that Deckard illustrates when he says,

"Machines are either a benefit or a hazard. If they're a benefit, they're not my problem." 

However, as the plot progresses, you are made to question the ethics of this prejudice. Much like Inception, the film's close is abrupt and punctuated by a question mark. Was Deckard a Replicant all along? Was he just a machine killing machines, or does he approach some level of humanity by virtue of his created memories and experience? If he is artificial, will he merely escape into the same vicious cycle of violence and oppression he  once perpetrated unto others?

In contrast, the speculation raised by Mass Effect 3 centers mainly on its own plot. Any real inquiry is cut short; the Catalyst speaks in absolute terms and doesn't really allow a higher level of questioning about ethics or implications. Thus, it doesn't particularly matter what the details or causes are because the game assumes inevitability. Do Geth have souls or free will? Is it ethical to destroy them out of prejudice? When or how will artificial life destroy all biological life? It doesn't matter, because there is only one possible outcome of their existence.

Fatalism sees meaning only in the end.

It is for this reason that I strongly disagree with anyone who credits the ending of Mass Effect 3 with depth or meaningfful speculation. It is, in my opinion, actually quite intellectually vacant. I say this because it thoughtlessly answers the wrong questions while ignoring the ones which are integral to its own plot and believability. As you have implied in previous posts, I am apparently not allowed to question the validity of the Catalysts' claims, existence, or necessity. My only choice is to accept them as fact.

Instead, the only speculation I am really left with is to question the generally incoherent chain of events that lead up to the final frame of animation. The only things I am left to interpret are cosmically trivial and without subtext or symbolism. How long until Zefram Cochrane beams himself over from the Star Trek universe and invents a warp drive? Did the intragalactic fleet provision itself well enough to survive now that it is stranded midway along one arm of the Milky way? Why did joker flee to a relay? Those are exactly the types of questions that I don't want to bother myself answering.

[Xandurpein]

Thank you for a very well written post OP. I think that you managed to nail one of my biggest disappointments with the ending; the fact that instead of encouraging speculatuon, it closes all speculation about the nature of life encouraged by the Quarian/Geth conflict in a very ham-fisted way.

Legion: Does this unit have a soul?
Catalyst: No!

Modifié par Xandurpein, 08 avril 2012 - 08:55 .

[Wabajakka]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

I completely agree. The game, or even the series as a whole once looked at in hindsight, does not at all show anything that can prove the Catalyst's "objective truth". It completely failed in this aspect from a story-telling perspective; directly contradicting what we had been shown throughout the series.

We have a winner folks.

[Kilshrek]

Xandurpein wrote...

Thank you for a very well written post OP. I think that you managed to nail one of my biggest disappointments with the ending; the fact that instead of encouraging speculatuon, it closes all speculation about the nature of life encouraged by the Quarian/Geth conflict in a very ham-fisted way.

Legion: Does this unit have a soul?
Catalyst: No!

Oh yes, how it angered me that the Catalyst dismissed the Geth, and by extension, Legion's sacrifice, as an unimportant thing.

[KitaSaturnyne]

Well said, OP. What I got from your post is that the ending with the Catalyst (which isn't much of catalyst to begin with) takes the major themes of the games and casts them out a nearby window, leaving one arbitrary point remaining - the Quarian's war against the Geth.

If the story of Mass Effect had centered around the struggle of the Quarians in the wake of the Morning War and their desire to reclaim their homeworld, I feel this ending would have been a lot more appropriate. If Shepard had been a Quarian, coming and going to the Migrant Fleet and encountering the Geth on many different levels, the ending to Mass Effect 3 would, in its current state, contain at least the framework of something great.

While the matter of the Geth and Quarians is a major part of the narrative, it's not the center of the narrative, and why it should suddenly be elevated as such in the end is arbitrary and unnessecary. Speaking as an audience member, I simply have to say that if the Catalyst wants to explore that particular matter, it had better take the time to go over every other matter that's become important to the narrative as well.

A sticking point of mine is that the conversation with the Catalyst breaks the narrative by changing its conflict - "Destroy the Reapers" becomes "Solve a technological singularity that may never come". Your thoughts?

[KitaSaturnyne]

semiwise wrote...

No. What I meant was that there is a relay onboard Citadel - the relay in the Citadel Presidium. That is how reapers took control of the Citadel every time and that is why Saren goes to the Citadel in ME1. That is what the remaining protheans disabled.

Actually, the relay on the presidium was built by the Protheans and links only to Ilos. It was built to be the Protheans' "back door" into the Citadel. After using it, they manipulated the Keepers so they wouldn't respond to Sovereign's 'wake up' signal, then died on the Citadel. Vigil states as much when you talk to him. The presidium relay is how Saren goes to the Citadel, not why. The Protheans didn't disable any mass relays at all, they altered the Keepers so that they'd ignore Soveriegn's commands, as I previously stated.

[KitaSaturnyne]

semiwise wrote...

Yes I can - Star Child AI says so.
You simply presume that the AI "LIES" for some unknown purpose. Or Bioware is making the Star Child lie for some unknown purpose.

In that case, I offer you the following: Choosing the Destroy ending does NOT kill EDI or the Geth. Because I say so.

Not as easy to accept from me, is it? If I say something like that, I have to back it up with evidence, don't I? If that's the case, then why are the Catalyst's assertions automatically true without evidence?

Legion and the Geth don't simply say that they want to coexist peacefully with organic races. They also demonstrate this. Thus, the Geth, and the narrative itself, don't give us any reason to believe that technological singularity will occur at all.

The Geth attacks you describe are all extremely special cases, and don't contribute to the idea of an approaching technological singularity. In ME1, the Geth joined Saren's cause because Sovereign was able to introduce a mathematical error that convinced those Geth that Sovereign was right. Even Legion says that those Geth that attacked the Citadel were a minority at best.

I'm not sure how re-writing the heretics in ME2 supports your argument. Leaving out the ethical implications that arise during Legion's loyalty mission, the re-write simply corrects the mathematical error that the Reapers introduced into the Geth's code. They then become the Geth who only wanted the chance for self-determination and coexistance with organic races.

In ME3, the Geth didn't join the Reapers because they thought the Reapers were right, or that they wanted to exterminate all organic life. They were attacked by the Quarians, and the Reapers used this situation to their benefit. It began as a matter of survival, which lead to the Geth becoming slaves of the Reapers.

[oneyedjohn]

great post OP. thanks for summing up what I have been trying to say more eloquently.

here is a interesting point. In ME2 legion said that the Geth where outside of the reapers plans. if all synthetics always to rebel ageist the creators, wouldn't the morning war work into the reapers plan?

I think what though the reapers in a loop is the geth where fighting for the different reasons than what the reapers are expecting. maybe in previous cycles, synthetics fought to become the dominate race in the galaxy and the reapers just showed up as reinforcements that took over the synthetics a well.

The geth, on the other hand, hold no ill will twords organics and just want to be left alone, totally against reaper principle, which is why they use, first the heritics to rewrite the peaceful geth and later by high jacking the geth to when they asked for help.

the geth might just be the most origional thing about this cycle. more of an x factor than shepard in saving the milky way.