39 réponses à ce sujet

[beyondsolo]

Ulti84 wrote...

100% Agree

Its clearly a fact that the most of us will pay for a better end as an DLC.
So please Bioware, take the time u need and save the wonderfull magic of this Universe you created.

While I agree with many that a paid ending DLC would set a bad precedent, I think I'd be willing to make an exception this time and grant BioWare some of my money if, in turn, they'd grant me my wish to make a new ending.

toffeetrooper wrote...

good post @beyondsolo very well said

Thank you.

Maro wrote...

There is the whole neo-creationism thing too, with this new DNA composed of biotic and machine. How much more god-like would any kind of technology that is capable of doing this would appear. We, or at least I, saw Joker & EDI emerge onto a planet that looks like a paradise, like perhaps Eden, cuddling together in a loving embrace. Biotic and machine, the new Adam & Eve... or at least a symbol of this union. Deus ex machina. On top of that, isn't the frame EDI is in called Eva?

You make a very interesting point here, Maro. The neo-creationist symbolicism is definitely there. 

Implementation of DNA into machines is a massive step forward compared to ordinary machines in the Mass Effect universe, and the implementation of machine whatever into organic life should make it more resistant to, well, everything including synthetics.

What bugs me is that, assuming the technology to create synthesis has been there from the start, it was never used. Why did the Reapers wipe out civilizations instead of just forcefully integrating them into synthetic existence? They would have lost much less "essence" of species, as that is how Reapers are created IIRC. They could have operated as a sort of galaxy-scale Borg. The fact that the technology for synthesis is there makes the entire cycle of destruction completely pointless.

What I also can't shake is the feeling that choosing synthesis is a major imposition on all life in the galaxy. I mean, neither Shepard not the player can in any way fathom what kind of consequences that would have. I still feel bad for picking it, but then again, the other two choices were just as empty and devoid of consequence and explanation in terms of what we actually see.

[The_Crazy_Hand]

 It's not about taking the easy way out, it's about the "I DON'T WANNA" principle.  No amount of reason matters, no amount of lost business or bugging the **** out of them.  It's about the fact that Casey, Mac, and Ray, simply do not want to change it, and are trying everything to keep from having to do so.

Modifié par The_Crazy_Hand, 25 mars 2012 - 09:29 .

[beyondsolo]

The_Crazy_Hand wrote...

 It's not about taking the easy way out, it's about the "I DON'T WANNA" principle.  No amount of reason matters, no amount of lost business or bugging the **** out of them.  It's about the fact that Casey, Mac, and Ray, simply do not want to change it, and are trying everything to keep from having to do so.

Yes, I'm afraid that is the impression one gets when following BioWare's communication to the community. It seems that the "we are listening" comment only serves to placate the fans until things quiet down and people forget why they're angry.

I'd also like to point out, sort of in BioWare's defense, that all we've heard and seen so far was only PR talk. BioWare and the people actually responsible for making the game/key decisions cannot speak freely to the community, and the people working in BioWare's PR division have very strict guidelines about what they're allowed/not allowed to say.

And there is also EA, who I'm certain is closely monitoring the situation and possibly also dictating BioWare's PR agenda on the matter. In the end, we haven't truly heard a response from the core of BioWare (as a very insightful individual pointed out in another thread).

I reserve judgement on the matter based on what I'll be holding in my hands when all this is over. If BioWare end up saying "no" and leave the ending the way it is, then that will be my base of judging them and making future decisions about buying their products. If they try to take the easy way out and fail to address fans' concerns about the ending, then I will base my decision on that. Same goes for BioWare delivering a satisfactory ending to Mass Effect 3.

I think this is a point where BioWare (and most likely EA) must stop thinking about short-term profits and invest in the future. I understand that it's not what shareholders want to hear, but BioWare is a studio that lives off its continuity. They are a studio that has built its reputation and franchise on a solid fan base and the fans' trust that they can count on BioWare to deliver. Giving up on that now only to save money in the short term will hurt them in the long run.

[ShepGep]

The only way this "ending" makes any sense is if it is indeed an indoctrination hallucination of Shepard's. Some people may say that's a cop-out by them, but it's the only way for this story to go for a logical conclusion with no plot holes or plot contradictions.

[beyondsolo]

ShepGep wrote...

The only way this "ending" makes any sense is if it is indeed an indoctrination hallucination of Shepard's. Some people may say that's a cop-out by them, but it's the only way for this story to go for a logical conclusion with no plot holes or plot contradictions.

As I wrote earlier, I'm skeptical about the indoctrination/hallucination concept. I think when BioWare decides to admit that they will not stand by the ending the way it is, then a complete rewrite would do the game more good than this theory. However, I'm willing to give them a shot, as I'm also curious what BioWare could do by picking up on it.

Modifié par beyondsolo, 25 mars 2012 - 09:48 .

[Maro]

beyondsolo wrote...

Maro wrote...

There is the whole neo-creationism thing too, with this new DNA composed of biotic and machine. How much more god-like would any kind of technology that is capable of doing this would appear. We, or at least I, saw Joker & EDI emerge onto a planet that looks like a paradise, like perhaps Eden, cuddling together in a loving embrace. Biotic and machine, the new Adam & Eve... or at least a symbol of this union. Deus ex machina. On top of that, isn't the frame EDI is in called Eva?

You make a very interesting point here, Maro. The neo-creationist symbolicism is definitely there. 

Implementation of DNA into machines is a massive step forward compared to ordinary machines in the Mass Effect universe, and the implementation of machine whatever into organic life should make it more resistant to, well, everything including synthetics.

What bugs me is that, assuming the technology to create synthesis has been there from the start, it was never used. Why did the Reapers wipe out civilizations instead of just forcefully integrating them into synthetic existence? They would have lost much less "essence" of species, as that is how Reapers are created IIRC. They could have operated as a sort of galaxy-scale Borg. The fact that the technology for synthesis is there makes the entire cycle of destruction completely pointless.

What I also can't shake is the feeling that choosing synthesis is a major imposition on all life in the galaxy. I mean, neither Shepard not the player can in any way fathom what kind of consequences that would have. I still feel bad for picking it, but then again, the other two choices were just as empty and devoid of consequence and explanation in terms of what we actually see.

I think about Gregor Mendel and Charles Darwin when thinking about why synthesis wasn't used to begin with.  These are two people tied to our understanding of selection and how it's tied to genetics, then eventually Watson & Crick came along with the A-T/G-C DNA model.  Maybe Shepard exhibited a certain trait that Catalyst felt would be good in synthesis.  He did, at least in my play through, broker peace between the Quarians and Geth.  This is the same kind of question, in selection, people ponder about in any kind of mate selection.  Long horns or short horns, blue or green, blond or brunette, runs fast or runs slow, etc.  Sometimes the environment factors contribute to selection, for example the pepper moth phenotype tied to predation.

Anyhow, I have to say that I have the same toughts/feelings you are voicing, though I haven't found a good way to express it.

[beatrix.kiddo.bride]

Thank you for writing all of this. It eloquently states why I have issues with the current "endings". It's all about logic and plotholes.

[beyondsolo]

Maro wrote...

I think about Gregor Mendel and Charles Darwin when thinking about why synthesis wasn't used to begin with. These are two people tied to our understanding of selection and how it's tied to genetics, then eventually Watson & Crick came along with the A-T/G-C DNA model. Maybe Shepard exhibited a certain trait that Catalyst felt would be good in synthesis. He did, at least in my play through, broker peace between the Quarians and Geth. This is the same kind of question, in selection, people ponder about in any kind of mate selection. Long horns or short horns, blue or green, blond or brunette, runs fast or runs slow, etc. Sometimes the environment factors contribute to selection, for example the pepper moth phenotype tied to predation.

If I understand you correctly, then you're saying that the God Child/Reapers were waiting for evolution to bring forward a sort of genetical messiah they could use for their synthesis solution to forever end the struggle between organics and machines. That would at least partially explain why the Reapers wiped out advanced civilizations to make room for new ones in the hope that the next cycle would deliver what the current one failed at.

Of course, that brings forward a whole new set of problems. The Protheans, for example were far more advanced than any of the current-cycle species, and the Reapers didn't even consider them worthy of being stored in Reaper form. Further, if the entire point of the cycle was this the synthesis through a genetical messiah, i.e. Shepard, then why did the God Child offer the destroy/control options? Either of these would effectively wipe out millions of years worth of effort by the Reapers. It doesn't make sense.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. And thanks for your thoughts.

Maro wrote...

Anyhow, I have to say that I have the same toughts/feelings you are voicing, though I haven't found a good way to express it.

It's always good to know that one isn't alone. It took me quite some time and lurking/posting brief ideas on the massive "So we can't have ending we want after all" thread, and also learning of other people's thoughts, to finally put this together.

beatrix.kiddo.bride wrote...

Thank you for writing all of this. It eloquently states why I have issues with the current "endings". It's all about logic and plotholes

You're welcome. I'm always happy about voices of support.

Modifié par beyondsolo, 25 mars 2012 - 10:14 .

[The_Crazy_Hand]

beyondsolo wrote...
Yes, I'm afraid that is the impression one gets when following BioWare's communication to the community. It seems that the "we are listening" comment only serves to placate the fans until things quiet down and people forget why they're angry.

I'd also like to point out, sort of in BioWare's defense, that all we've heard and seen so far was only PR talk. BioWare and the people actually responsible for making the game/key decisions cannot speak freely to the community, and the people working in BioWare's PR division have very strict guidelines about what they're allowed/not allowed to say.

That 2nd paragraph is exactly why I think it is just Ray, Mac, and Casey who are against us.  There's plenty of ancedotal evidence that most, if not all the rest are either on our side, or at least understand where we're coming from and sympathize.

And there is also EA, who I'm certain is closely monitoring the situation and possibly also dictating BioWare's PR agenda on the matter. In the end, we haven't truly heard a response from the core of BioWare (as a very insightful individual pointed out in another thread).

I reserve judgement on the matter based on what I'll be holding in my hands when all this is over. If BioWare end up saying "no" and leave the ending the way it is, then that will be my base of judging them and making future decisions about buying their products. If they try to take the easy way out and fail to address fans' concerns about the ending, then I will base my decision on that. Same goes for BioWare delivering a satisfactory ending to Mass Effect 3.

I think this is a point where BioWare (and most likely EA) must stop thinking about short-term profits and invest in the future. I understand that it's not what shareholders want to hear, but BioWare is a studio that lives off its continuity. They are a studio that has built its reputation and franchise on a solid fan base and the fans' trust that they can count on BioWare to deliver. Giving up on that now only to save money in the short term will hurt them in the long run.

I completely agree with this, all of it.  I don't doubt EA is somehow behind this.  

[Maro]

You have to look at the single living Prothean to get why they weren't chosen.  Every conversation I had with him ended with him not trusting synthics at all.  He told me to flush Legion out an airlock, to dispose of all synthetics, to not trust synthetics.  As advanced as the Protheans were, they had no fealty for snythetic life at all.  To me, their view was that synthetic life was a desperate problem to be eradicated, but eventually, in hindsight, they eradicated themselves.

Our Shepard allowed EDI to "be" and brokered peace between Quarians and Geth.  This is much different than the route the Protheans took.

Another point-of-view about Protheans was also seen through Liara.  Liara realized her romantic view about Protheans did not live up to her expectations.  I have to LoL about her book titles.

[beyondsolo]

The_Crazy_Hand wrote...

That 2nd paragraph is exactly why I think it is just Ray, Mac, and Casey who are against us.  There's plenty of ancedotal evidence that most, if not all the rest are either on our side, or at least understand where we're coming from and sympathize.

I suppose I just want to be naïve in this regard. I don't they are specifically against us, and I faintly hope that they, too, would have wanted a different ending. That's why I still hope that they will seize the opportunity of the protest to give us an ending that makes sense and isn't cut to shreds due to time restraints.

This is my personal opinion, of course, and I doubt I'll ever get a straight answer to my concerns--or anyone of us, for that matter. While I understand that they can't address the request of every single of their customers, I think the professionalization and automatization of company/customer relations has substantially overshot its goal. People now feel frustrated and helpless because they just don't feel like they matter anymore.

The fact that BioWare still clings to review scores in spite of the fans' reaction makes me feel unimportant enough. It makes me feel as if they were making the games for the reviewers, not for the fans. And that hurts immensely. But as I said, a faint glimmer of hope remains as long as the issue remains unresolved.

Maro wrote...

You have to look at the single living Prothean to get why they weren't chosen. Every conversation I had with him ended with him not trusting synthics at all. He told me to flush Legion out an airlock, to dispose of all synthetics, to not trust synthetics. As advanced as the Protheans were, they had no fealty for snythetic life at all. To me, their view was that synthetic life was a desperate problem to be eradicated, but eventually, in hindsight, they eradicated themselves.

Our Shepard allowed EDI to "be" and brokered peace between Quarians and Geth. This is much different than the route the Protheans took.

Another point-of-view about Protheans was also seen through Liara. Liara realized her romantic view about Protheans did not live up to her expectations. I have to LoL about her book titles.

I hope you catch this since I'm just editing this into my previous post.

This assumes that the usefulness of the genotype for the synthesis expresses itself in a species' behaviour. The problem I see here is that most of humanity is not like Shepard. What I gather from Mass Effect lore is that humanity is extremely powerful and expansionist, by its very nature self-supremacist, even toward other life forms. I always saw humanity's role in spearheading the war against the Reapers, dragging the rest of the galaxy along for the ride. And I'm not even a renegade... I just think that humanity is, because of its evolution, the one pro-organics argument.

Shepard, then, would be the most sophisticated human to live. But that makes the absolute strength of mankind as a whole relative.

Modifié par beyondsolo, 25 mars 2012 - 10:40 .

[Maro]

beyondsolo wrote...
This assumes that the usefulness of the genotype for the synthesis expresses itself in a species' behaviour. The problem I see here is that most of humanity is not like Shepard. What I gather from Mass Effect lore is that humanity is extremely powerful and expansionist, by its very nature self-supremacist, even toward other life forms. I always saw humanity's role in spearheading the war against the Reapers, dragging the rest of the galaxy along for the ride. And I'm not even a renegade... I just think that humanity is, because of its evolution, the one pro-organics argument.

Shepard, then, would be the most sophisticated human to live. But that makes the absolute strength of mankind as a whole relative.

Yeap.  He's been the only organic to ever make it to the Catalyst, or so I was told in my ending.  Perhaps he was the right substrate, given how a catalyst works, the beings-that-be had not truly anticipated, or had they?  It's hard to believe that in 37 million years, and the many Reaper cycles that span this time, that not one organic being had ever been to the Catalyst.  I don't think Shepard should be viewed as only a human, he represents the best of what this entire Reaper cycle has brought together. It's why he's the hero and the central protagonist of this story.  Sounds so Paragon of me.

[beyondsolo]

Maro wrote...

Yeap.  He's been the only organic to ever make it to the Catalyst, or so I was told in my ending.  Perhaps he was the right substrate, given how a catalyst works, the beings-that-be had not truly anticipated, or had they?  It's hard to believe that in 37 million years, and the many Reaper cycles that span this time, that not one organic being had ever been to the Catalyst.  I don't think Shepard should be viewed as only a human, he represents the best of what this entire Reaper cycle has brought together. It's why he's the hero and the central protagonist of this story.  Sounds so Paragon of me.

I think that this is where the ending collapses (again). Shepard is the epitomy of what human nature can enable an organic individual to be. However, that what Shepard ultimately becomes is his own effort, not an inherent capacity. And since humanity is very new to the scene of galactic civilzation, I find it hard to consider Shepard a cultural cross product of the entire cycle.

On another note, if the Reapers intended someone to reach the Citadel at one point, why did they move it from the Widow Nebula to the Sol system? Shouldn't they just have left it where it was and tested the strength of the incoming fleet/its individuals to see if one of them can reach the Catalyst?

The way I understand it the Reapers themselves didn't actually know the Citadel was crucial to the operation of the Crucible until TIM told them. But the God Child must have known, since we assume that the synthesis ending was goal of the Reapers all along. That means that the Crucible must have been of Reaper origin from the very beginning, part of the test that should determine a cycle's strength and capability of producing the genotypical messiah.

This, in turn, devastates the entire idea of Shepard's final decision freeing the organics from the grip of Reaper control. Even the very act of wiping Reaper technology from the galaxy (Citadel, mass relays) is a Reaper-ordained action.

[NReed106]

Agreed, this is why the BW announcement gave me no hope. There are good bittersweet endings, but destroying galactic civilization is just bitter.

[beyondsolo]

NReed106 wrote...

Agreed, this is why the BW announcement gave me no hope. There are good bittersweet endings, but destroying galactic civilization is just bitter.

I know how you feel. I think the most blatant failure of BioWare's PR is that customers have to ignore it entirely if they want to retain any sort of hope about their requests being fulfilled. As I said, I think BioWare's PR policy has overshot its target by a wide margin, though you have to admire them for sticking to it so adamantly.

As for the ending... Yes. The bitterness definitely prevails, no matter how you look at it. It's such a shame.