345 réponses à ce sujet

[CronoDragoon]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

That's a fair point. Once again, I would point to the age of the Catalyst and say that because of that, it...circumcedes everything the series has shown us.
.

This is a valid view to hold, although I am surprised it is a writer taking this stance! (not a diss, just seems like we've been agreeing on most of the literary problems with the ending)

[CronoDragoon]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

SandTrout wrote...
And how is the Catalyst any different, because we're forced to go along with the options it provides, and lack the ability to tell it to get stuffed like we could with Sovy and Harby.

The Catalyst and the Reapers are saying very different things and giving very different options.

Reapers: Eat lasers, pig.

The Catalyst: Synthetics and Organics cannot coexist.

The first is not logic, it is something most people would, naturally, fight against.

The second, however, is a declarative statement, and that requires knowledge to truly challange, knowledge we don't have.

Well, I'd argue that Shepard would not need an encyclopedia of the universe to challenge this. After all, my Shepard cured the genophage and gave the krogan another chance even though the krogan almost overran civilization, explicity saying that people need second chances to prove themselves. I think that if someone cures the genophage and makes peace with the geth/quarians, their ending choices should differ than someone who believed the krogans were better off castrated, and killed the geth without a second thought.

[Reptilian Rob]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

SandTrout wrote...
And how is the Catalyst any different, because we're forced to go along with the options it provides, and lack the ability to tell it to get stuffed like we could with Sovy and Harby.

The Catalyst and the Reapers are saying very different things and giving very different options.

Reapers: Eat lasers, pig.

The Catalyst: Synthetics and Organics cannot coexist.

The first is not logic, it is something most people would, naturally, fight against.

The second, however, is a declarative statement, and that requires knowledge to truly challange, knowledge we don't have.

http://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?multiverseid=34368&type=card

[SandTrout]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

SandTrout wrote...
And how is the Catalyst any different, because we're forced to go along with the options it provides, and lack the ability to tell it to get stuffed like we could with Sovy and Harby.

The Catalyst and the Reapers are saying very different things and giving very different options.

Reapers: Eat lasers, pig.

The Catalyst: Synthetics and Organics cannot coexist.

The first is not logic, it is something most people would, naturally, fight against.

The second, however, is a declarative statement, and that requires knowledge to truly challange, knowledge we don't have.

We never get the actual motivation of the Reapers laid out, but since they are the Catalyst's 'solution' their motivation, knowingly or not, it the same as the catalyst's motivation, which is retarded from the perspective that Vent Boy states that he created the Reapers, and then proceeds to state that the created always rebel against their creator, which should mean that according to his logic, the Reapers should rebel against the Catalyst. However, since this has not, and presumably will not, happen, the Catalyst has, through the Reapers, proven his own premise false. The Reapers' nature as synthetic or organic, from this wording, is irrelevant, because they were still created.

All this still does not negate that the Catalyst is treated as having Omnicient Morality License, when we are presented with nothing to prove that he is correct, and his actions contradict his logical premis.

[Elyiia]

The whole of the Geth situation basically comes down to the stupidity of the Quarians as a whole. If they didn't freak out over "does this unit have a soul" and start trying to commit genocide, the Geth wouldn't have attacked. If the Quarians hadn't restarted the war, they wouldn't have had any deaths.

Hell, had Shepard not been grounded she could have gone to Rannoch right there and ended the war before it started.

We know for a fact that the Geth only act in self defence because there are organics (birds) living on Rannoch, ignoring everything else we're shown that supports this.

[SaladinDheonqar]

The positives of what EA might bring to the table in this particular case or in general (bigger marketing...etc), is completely dwarfed by how they negatively influence the development and the content of the actual games (deadlines, dlcs, making it more 'casual friendly'...etc). Just look at what they did to Westwood Studios.

[ubermensch007]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Elyiia wrote...

I don't think a clarification is going to be enough. If we say that IT isn't actually a thing, then we have an ending that sticks out like a sore thumb if you played ParagonShep. It doesn't fit the character for him/her to blindly accept what the kid is saying. ParagonShep would have argued with the kid's points at the very least and RenegadeShep would have told the kid to "f*** off".

You're forgetting a couple of things though.

1. The Catalyst is thousands and thousands of years old.

Choosing the form of a child was a poor choice I think. It caused people to view the Catalyst as a child, with the experience of a child, as opposed to an entity that is millenia old.

However, the Catalyst knows more than Shepard. The Catalyst has been around longer than humans have existed, longer than Asari have existed, longer that Protheans have existed. The Catalyst has eons of evidence to back up what it says, while Shepard can only present the weak arguments of a species that has been on the glactic fron for less than three decades. Shepard has absolutely no position to argue from. The Catalyst has seen it all before, and has seen where it eventually leads to.

One could argue that the Geth are a sign of synthetics and organics coexisting peacefully. However, that one would be arguing only from the experience of a couple hundred years. The Catalyst has doubtless seen this before. What makes one think this cycle is so unique and different from countless others?

2. Shepard is in no physical condition to argue.

Shepard was hit by a Reaper beam, if I'm not mistaken. When he gets to the Citadel, he is in horrible, horrible shape, barely able to shuffle along. After the encounter with the Illusive Man, he tries to stand up straight to reach the console and falls to the ground, eventually having to pull himself up by the console. If he can't even stand straight, if he collapses right after, what makes you think he's in any position to have a philosophical debate with an eons old entity?

You make some good points here EA, but all I can think of is this:

One could parallel the Catalyist "longview" with that of an Asari Matriarch.But that doesn't make the Matriarch right and a shorter lived species wrong.For all the asari's supposed wisom, expeirence and intelligence.Their performance during the Reaper Invasion, was downright pitful <_< They should have been spearheading the War Summit, instead they chose to keep to themselves.What Javik says to Liara after the Fall of Thessia.Was very true in my opinion.The Asari were this galactic cycles Varsity Team.They've been spacefaring longer than anyone else.Have more colonies than anyone else.They established the Citadel Council.And what good were they, when it really count?

And all I could think about when that so called 'starchild' was speaking.Was that it chose that form to appear innocent and nonthreatening to Commander Shepard.And there are no two ways about it. How it is using the Reapers is not a "Solution" it is Murder.Pure and simple.It is imposing its will on other life forms.In a sort of Cosmic Nanny State!

No one asked for its damn Solution. No one wants its interference in their lives.But it just has unilaterally decided to call the shots -- because it can.

Modifié par ubermensch007, 28 mars 2012 - 09:22 .

[Jeno_340]

SaladinDheonqar wrote...

The positives of what EA might bring to the table in this particular case or in general (bigger marketing...etc), is completely dwarfed by how they negatively influence the development and the content of the actual games (deadlines, dlcs, making it more 'casual friendly'...etc). Just look at what they did to Westwood Studios.

Yeah, I agree. I just think Bioware will lose a lot of money if ending dlc doesn't include all the promises they made about how the ending was supposed to be.

Im saying that EA wont let that happen.

[CavScout]

cerberus1701 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

They were trying to reclaim their homeworld.

So, what?

That makes Genocide, Part 2 ok?

The only reason they lost their world to begin with was because they tried to exterminate the other intelligent species that then lived there.

You'd think they'd have learned something after all that.

So the Quarians have no right to their homeworld? A world that without, they are becoming relegated to wearing enviro suits all the time.

I find your anger at some machines behing shutdown oddly misplaced as you seem to have no problem seeing millioins of organic beings being destroyed.

[CavScout]

CronoDragoon wrote...

CavScout wrote...
So justifiable genocide is based on who started it?

The geth were not committing genocide on the quarians. Genocide means that they are being killed because of their belonging to a certain race/ethnicity/etc. The geth were killing quarians because the quarians were attacking them, not because they were quarians.

Today, it would be labeled genocide for one nation to force out, by arms and mass killings, the members of a specific group. You don't have to kill everyone to be genocide, the mere act of removing them from their lands falls into that catagory.

If not for fleeing, the Quarians would have been wiped out.

[CavScout]

Mighty_BOB_cnc wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Mighty_BOB_cnc wrote...

CavScout wrote...
A) Doesn't show that it is lying.
Doesn't change the fact that Shepard would not be able to argue against millions of years of observation. He simply couldn't.

-A Doesn't show that it is NOT lying.  Claims require evidence as proof (which goes back to the 'they should have had additional dialog' idea, hell have godchild open a holoscreen with vids of the past events).
-B is invalid if it IS lying about that observation.

So really Shep has no reason to trust the godchild, but also no reason NOT to, which is where Shep's judgement comes in, or rather it's where it would if we had the dialog wheel, even if arguing was pointless and Shep still only had the same 3 options in the end.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

You need to prove you accusation.

No one can prove either side because there is not enough information given in the few minutes of dialog with the godchild.  That is my entire point.  There is no reason for Shep to accept its claims at face value due to it being the antagonist but there is also no reason not to.  The problem is it flies in the face of the theme of self-determination present in the rest of the story.

In theory the godchild could be right due to witnessing millions of years of history, and in theory it could also be wrong because maybe it never 'gave peace a chance' like Shep can try between the Geth and Quarians.  Due to complete lack of information we just can't know.  It's information that should have been there, and it's a dialog wheel that should have been present.

Both sides are not equal. I can claim there is a tea pot in orbit around the nearest star. Just because you can't prove me wrong doesn't mean my theory is "equal" to yours that there is no tea pot.

Two theories may not be disprovable but they are not equally provable either.

[gmboy902]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

but what about loyal fans who loved the ending?

And, btw, I'm 99% percent certain there's a thread on here citing someone on the ME3 team saying that WAS the intended ending.

Make that 99.9%.

Many, many more loyal fans do not like the ending than loved it.

The silent majority is comprised of people who just care about the action, or are neutral as to the ending and won't care about DLC for it.

[CavScout]

Reptilian Rob wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

SandTrout wrote...
And how is the Catalyst any different, because we're forced to go along with the options it provides, and lack the ability to tell it to get stuffed like we could with Sovy and Harby.

The Catalyst and the Reapers are saying very different things and giving very different options.

Reapers: Eat lasers, pig.

The Catalyst: Synthetics and Organics cannot coexist.

The first is not logic, it is something most people would, naturally, fight against.

The second, however, is a declarative statement, and that requires knowledge to truly challange, knowledge we don't have.

http://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?multiverseid=34368&type=card

You seem to not understand what circular logic is....

[CavScout]

Elyiia wrote...

The whole of the Geth situation basically comes down to the stupidity of the Quarians as a whole. If they didn't freak out over "does this unit have a soul" and start trying to commit genocide, the Geth wouldn't have attacked. If the Quarians hadn't restarted the war, they wouldn't have had any deaths.

Hell, had Shepard not been grounded she could have gone to Rannoch right there and ended the war before it started.

We know for a fact that the Geth only act in self defence because there are organics (birds) living on Rannoch, ignoring everything else we're shown that supports this.

Why do people think organics means every living organism, and not just every sentient organic? I doubt anyone think synthetics includes personal computers.... or iPods...

[ubermensch007]

Oh and another thing: All Shep had to say to refute all the nonsense the godboy was spewing is this:

Shepard: You really did make the Reapers in your image I see.

Starchild: How so human?

Shepard: Cause you remind me so much of Sovereign.

You have the same complete and utter lack of humility... You think that you've seen it all.But correct me if I'm wrong;  the entire Mass Relay Network only covers less than 1% of the total enviroment of the Milky Way Galaxy.How could you possibly think that what you have bore witness to in such a relatively small enviroment and test group.Gives you enough data to judge the whole?! This is one galaxy in a sea of thousands.Yet you have the arrogance and conceit to believe that you have it all figured out!

[Myrmedus]

I think that's the problem: too many allegedly's, maybe's, possibly's, if's etc. for a player/viewer/reader to be able to take that at face value.

Also, I would question how much experience he has had in terms of his argument because while he has seen countless cycles rise and fall, all of these were influenced by him so cannot be used as any kind of evidence to or against his assertions.

The only evidence to support his beliefs would be to allow life to writhe completely freely and see what happens: multiple times. This is where I have an issue with his evidence: I do not see how it is technically possible for him to have seen synthetics wipe out all organics multiple times.

So basically, how does its inference fit in with a narrative? Like the poster said? Well, certainly not be forcing us to obey its solution and pick one of three options, because even though one of those ends it and the Reapers, it is still imposing upon us. We have no option to reject and propose something different. I honestly believe this was too complex a story arc to put in at the very end of the game. It needed development and an array of possible solutions to be viable. This was where the true "16 endings" should've come into fruition, based upon your path up to that point through all 3 games, because there would've been so many possible solutions to the problem. Instead, we are forced into 3.