345 réponses à ce sujet

[CavScout]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

I apologize, I'm slowing working my way through responses here.

CronoDragoon wrote...

The Catalyst has not seen precisely the one thing he promises as inevitable.

Also, as a writer, you should know it is silly to spend two games showing one thing, then tell the audience the other at the end.

What would that be?

ME1: The synthetics want to kill organics
ME2: The Geth continue killing organics. Only at the very end of the game, when you get the last squad member, when there is literally only one more main quest mission to go, do you learn different.

Mass Effect does not have a history of saying synthetics and organics can coexist.

It's funny, it's like people don't even remember ME1.

[Elyiia]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

I apologize, I'm slowing working my way through responses here.

CronoDragoon wrote...

The Catalyst has not seen precisely the one thing he promises as inevitable.

Also, as a writer, you should know it is silly to spend two games showing one thing, then tell the audience the other at the end.

What would that be?

ME1: The synthetics want to kill organics
ME2: The Geth continue killing organics. Only at the very end of the game, when you get the last squad member, when there is literally only one more main quest mission to go, do you learn different.

Mass Effect does not have a history of saying synthetics and organics can coexist.

In ME1 we assume all Geth are hostile.
In ME2 we're shown that the hostile Geth are specifically because of the Reaper influence.
In ME3 we're shown that the Quarians being turfed off their plant was because of the Quarians and the Geth had an oppertunity to kill them for good and did no take it.

While it doesn't say that they can coexist, it sure does put holes in the synthetics want to kill every organic theory.

[The Angry One]

CavScout wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

I apologize, I'm slowing working my way through responses here.

CronoDragoon wrote...

The Catalyst has not seen precisely the one thing he promises as inevitable.

Also, as a writer, you should know it is silly to spend two games showing one thing, then tell the audience the other at the end.

What would that be?

ME1: The synthetics want to kill organics
ME2: The Geth continue killing organics. Only at the very end of the game, when you get the last squad member, when there is literally only one more main quest mission to go, do you learn different.

Mass Effect does not have a history of saying synthetics and organics can coexist.

It's funny, it's like people don't even remember ME1.

ITT: We pretend that the Geth in ME1 weren't being manipulated by the Reapers, the force who's supposed mandate is to stop this very thing from happening.

[cerberus1701]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

I apologize, I'm slowing working my way through responses here.

CronoDragoon wrote...

The Catalyst has not seen precisely the one thing he promises as inevitable.

Also, as a writer, you should know it is silly to spend two games showing one thing, then tell the audience the other at the end.

What would that be?

ME1: The synthetics want to kill organics
ME2: The Geth continue killing organics. Only at the very end of the game, when you get the last squad member, when there is literally only one more main quest mission to go, do you learn different.

Mass Effect does not have a history of saying synthetics and organics can coexist.

ME1 and ME2? Only a small group of synthetics (Heretics) and then only because Soveriegn came in and decided to stir the pot. Before he showed up the Geth were basically peacefully behind the Veil.

[CronoDragoon]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

I apologize, I'm slowing working my way through responses here.

CronoDragoon wrote...

The Catalyst has not seen precisely the one thing he promises as inevitable.

Also, as a writer, you should know it is silly to spend two games showing one thing, then tell the audience the other at the end.

What would that be?

ME1: The synthetics want to kill organics
ME2: The Geth continue killing organics. Only at the very end of the game, when you get the last squad member, when there is literally only one more main quest mission to go, do you learn different.

Mass Effect does not have a history of saying synthetics and organics can coexist.

ME1: A renegade branch of synthetics join the Reapers in an attempt to evolve. The other geth disapprove.
Me2: You learn the goals of the geth, which do not involve destruction or war with organics at all.
ME3: Geth peace, we learn the geth could have wiped out the quarians and chose not to, etc etc.

The Heretic Geth resemble Cerberus more than they do anything; a splinter group trying to further its own ends through destructive means. They are not an indictment of synthetics as a whole.

[Hexoskin]

HenchxNarf wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...



You're a writer, yet you liked the ending? That makes about as much sense as the ending itself.

As a writer, how can you not see how nonsensical, contradictory and incoherent the ening is from a purely literary stand point?

I'm a writer, and I liked the ending. What of it? I understand the ending and enjoy it.

ME3 lead writer making this ending so there can be "Lots of speculation for everyone!"

Do feel free to tell me what the ending means when the Lead Writer doesn't even know himself.

Dridengx wrote...

Devils-DIVISION wrote...

If you're happy with the ending - then DON'T-buy-the-DLC!
But 91% (refer to BW poll) are unhappy. So go home!

oh
the poll that had 71k people? yes that really seems logical for a mere
5% of the fanbase to demand things changed to a game that effects over
2.6 or more million fans. Why don't you get logic!

71k people, think we've about hit the point where the law of large numbers applies no? Even if all fans in the entire world voted on the topic right now we'd prolly not see more than 15% down.

[The Angry One]

Elyiia wrote...

In ME1 we assume all Geth are hostile.
In ME2 we're shown that the hostile Geth are specifically because of the Reaper influence.
In ME3 we're shown that the Quarians being turfed off their plant was because of the Quarians and the Geth had an oppertunity to kill them for good and did no take it.

While it doesn't say that they can coexist, it sure does put holes in the synthetics want to kill every organic theory.

Hell it does say they can co-exist. There were Quarian sympathisers and Geth who wanted to turn themselves in rather than see them come to harm.
Then there's, you know, the part where you can have them co-exist.

[Hunter_Wolf]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

but what about loyal fans who loved the ending?

If they love the endings they aren't really fans. Because that would imply they been here since ME1 and anybody I know whose played all games still sat there in disgust of the ending due to it's lack of closure.

Modifié par Hunter_Wolf, 28 mars 2012 - 06:52 .

[CronoDragoon]

greengoron89 wrote...

jarrettwold wrote...

...and this thread has descended into trolling and rage. I'm ditching out on it.

LOL. This forum has descended into trolling and rage - as of three weeks ago.

And it's still goin' strong.

By the way, I don't need any "evidence" to believe that death threats have been made - the very nature of the RME movement lends itself to the idea. It's a movement characterized by its passion, relentlessness, and audacity in "holding the line", trying to goad BW to giving fans "a better ending."

That, plus the fact that every single thread made in this forum that doesn't fall in line with the movement is quickly mobbed - or even posts that do fall in line, but still degenerate into fiery feuds regardless.

It does the movement no credit, to put it lightly.

It does the counter-movement no credit either that most pro-ending threads have an OP that contains either implied or blatant insults of people who don't like the ending. It's a cycle in which both sides ****** the other off and start insult chains and flame wars. Don't pretend one side is good and the other bad.

[CavScout]

The Angry One wrote...

CavScout wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

I apologize, I'm slowing working my way through responses here.

CronoDragoon wrote...

The Catalyst has not seen precisely the one thing he promises as inevitable.

Also, as a writer, you should know it is silly to spend two games showing one thing, then tell the audience the other at the end.

What would that be?

ME1: The synthetics want to kill organics
ME2: The Geth continue killing organics. Only at the very end of the game, when you get the last squad member, when there is literally only one more main quest mission to go, do you learn different.

Mass Effect does not have a history of saying synthetics and organics can coexist.

It's funny, it's like people don't even remember ME1.

ITT: We pretend that the Geth in ME1 weren't being manipulated by the Reapers, the force who's supposed mandate is to stop this very thing from happening.

You mean sided with the Reapers....

[CavScout]

cerberus1701 wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

I apologize, I'm slowing working my way through responses here.

CronoDragoon wrote...

The Catalyst has not seen precisely the one thing he promises as inevitable.

Also, as a writer, you should know it is silly to spend two games showing one thing, then tell the audience the other at the end.

What would that be?

ME1: The synthetics want to kill organics
ME2: The Geth continue killing organics. Only at the very end of the game, when you get the last squad member, when there is literally only one more main quest mission to go, do you learn different.

Mass Effect does not have a history of saying synthetics and organics can coexist.

ME1 and ME2? Only a small group of synthetics (Heretics) and then only because Soveriegn came in and decided to stir the pot. Before he showed up the Geth were basically peacefully behind the Veil.

If by "peaceful" you mean killing anyone poking around... oh and they sided with Saren....

[Gibb_Shepard]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

The Catalyst has not seen precisely the one thing he promises as inevitable.

Also, as a writer, you should know it is silly to spend two games showing one thing, then tell the audience the other at the end.

What would that be?

ME1: The synthetics want to kill organics
ME2: The Geth continue killing organics. Only at the very end of the game, when you get the last squad member, when there is literally only one more main quest mission to go, do you learn different.

Mass Effect does not have a history of saying synthetics and organics can coexist.

ME2 retroactively brought question to the Geth in ME1.

ME3 is the biggest culprit of showing you one thing, and telling you another. Everything to do with the Geth and synthetic life in general completely contradicts the logic of the starchild. ME3 shows you that the Geth never wanted to kill their creators (rendering "creations will always kill their creators" invalid. Hell, the starchild himself renders that invalid, but i digress), and eventually came to peace with their creators. Throughout ME3 EDI is becoming more and more "human" one might say, and eventually falls in love with Joker. This shows that machine ad organic can "love" one another; that love is not mutually exclusive.

What we are shown throughout ME3 is absolutely contradictory to the general theme of the ending. It is this lack of general consistency that renders the ending poorly done from a literary standpoint.

[cerberus1701]

Hunter_Wolf wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

but what about loyal fans who loved the ending?

If they love the endings they aren't really fans. Because that would imply they been here since ME1 and anybody I know whose played all games still sat there in disgust of the ending due to it's lack of closure.

I suspect many of them have only played ME3, so they really don't see what the fuss with the endings is about because they haven't been exposed to the complete narrative.

So they have no real understanding of exactly how jarring the last 10 minutes of ME3 actually is.

[Hexoskin]

CavScout wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

CavScout wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

I apologize, I'm slowing working my way through responses here.

CronoDragoon wrote...

The Catalyst has not seen precisely the one thing he promises as inevitable.

Also, as a writer, you should know it is silly to spend two games showing one thing, then tell the audience the other at the end.

What would that be?

ME1: The synthetics want to kill organics
ME2: The Geth continue killing organics. Only at the very end of the game, when you get the last squad member, when there is literally only one more main quest mission to go, do you learn different.

Mass Effect does not have a history of saying synthetics and organics can coexist.

It's funny, it's like people don't even remember ME1.

ITT: We pretend that the Geth in ME1 weren't being manipulated by the Reapers, the force who's supposed mandate is to stop this very thing from happening.

You mean sided with the Reapers....

Reapers don't care about the Geth.
Geth wants to be like the Reapers.

Yup sounds to me like they're being manipulated,

[CronoDragoon]

cerberus1701 wrote...

Hunter_Wolf wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

but what about loyal fans who loved the ending?

If they love the endings they aren't really fans. Because that would imply they been here since ME1 and anybody I know whose played all games still sat there in disgust of the ending due to it's lack of closure.

I suspect many of them have only played ME3, so they really don't see what the fuss with the endings is about because they haven't been exposed to the complete narrative.

So they have no real understanding of exactly how jarring the last 10 minutes of ME3 actually is.

That is not a fair statement to make.

[CavScout]

Gibb_ME2 retroactively brought question to the Geth in ME1.

ME3 is the biggest culprit of showing you one thing, and telling you another. Everything to do with the Geth and synthetic life in general completely contradicts the logic of the starchild. ME3 shows you that the Geth never wanted to kill their creators (rendering "creations will always kill their creators" invalid. Hell, the starchild himself renders that invalid, but i digress), and eventually came to peace with their creators. Throughout ME3 EDI is becoming more and more "human" one might say, and eventually falls in love with Joker. This shows that machine ad organic can "love" one another; that love is not mutually exclusive.

What we are shown throughout ME3 is absolutely contradictory to the general theme of the ending. It is this lack of general consistency that renders the ending poorly done from a literary standpoint.

You can say the "Geth never wanted" but in the end they did. The Geth didn't have to slaughter and then expell the Quarians. Yet they did.

[Bourne Endeavor]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

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?

How do we know it has seen anything? The Catalyst is not omnipotent, and therefore has an origin point. Regardless, why should we take anything it says at face value? We have no evidence to suggest it wouldn't be lying to prevent Shepard for actually winning. Furthermore, the Catalyst states synthetics killing organic as fact. It must refute the Geth/Quarian in some capability, otherwise it constitutes a plot hole. An obvious question is not being raised and the option is never made available.

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?

So we should simply believe the Catalyst because it said so? Sovereign claimed all organic life was little more than an accident and we were doomed to extinction. Why not believe him, he seems trustworthy. Harbinger rambles on about salvation through ascension, yet we ignore him. Shepard not being in the condition to argue is a poor excuse at defending the nonsensical from Godboy.

In essence, it would have been better had Shepard bled out, especially seeing Shepard killed more lives than the Reapers ever could. No, you do not get to refute the Relay explosion with "it may have been a more controlled explosion" The Catalyst never explain it, Shepard never asked, therefore the narrative from Arrival was not disproved.

[Tony208]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

I apologize, I'm slowing working my way through responses here.

CronoDragoon wrote...

The Catalyst has not seen precisely the one thing he promises as inevitable.

Also, as a writer, you should know it is silly to spend two games showing one thing, then tell the audience the other at the end.

What would that be?

ME1: The synthetics want to kill organics
ME2: The Geth continue killing organics. Only at the very end of the game, when you get the last squad member, when there is literally only one more main quest mission to go, do you learn different.

Mass Effect does not have a history of saying synthetics and organics can coexist.

ME1: Geth are being used by Sovereign.
ME2: Geth are killing organics? Which part of the game did you see that in? I saw a friendly Geth explain some of the misunderstandings and eventually became a friend of Shepard.
ME3: Geth/Quarian peace if you choose it

Modifié par Tony208, 28 mars 2012 - 07:01 .

[Jackal7713]

CronoDragoon wrote...

greengoron89 wrote...

jarrettwold wrote...

...and this thread has descended into trolling and rage. I'm ditching out on it.

LOL. This forum has descended into trolling and rage - as of three weeks ago.

And it's still goin' strong.

By the way, I don't need any "evidence" to believe that death threats have been made - the very nature of the RME movement lends itself to the idea. It's a movement characterized by its passion, relentlessness, and audacity in "holding the line", trying to goad BW to giving fans "a better ending."

That, plus the fact that every single thread made in this forum that doesn't fall in line with the movement is quickly mobbed - or even posts that do fall in line, but still degenerate into fiery feuds regardless.

It does the movement no credit, to put it lightly.

It does the counter-movement no credit either that most pro-ending threads have an OP that contains either implied or blatant insults of people who don't like the ending. It's a cycle in which both sides ****** the other off and start insult chains and flame wars. Don't pretend one side is good and the other bad.

I'm not trying to flame, but it seems like some of the pro-enders didn't play ME1 / ME 2  or didn't pay attention to the conversations. The reason why I say this is because they keep missing key points in the lore.

[CronoDragoon]

CavScout wrote...

Gibb_ME2 retroactively brought question to the Geth in ME1.

ME3 is the biggest culprit of showing you one thing, and telling you another. Everything to do with the Geth and synthetic life in general completely contradicts the logic of the starchild. ME3 shows you that the Geth never wanted to kill their creators (rendering "creations will always kill their creators" invalid. Hell, the starchild himself renders that invalid, but i digress), and eventually came to peace with their creators. Throughout ME3 EDI is becoming more and more "human" one might say, and eventually falls in love with Joker. This shows that machine ad organic can "love" one another; that love is not mutually exclusive.

What we are shown throughout ME3 is absolutely contradictory to the general theme of the ending. It is this lack of general consistency that renders the ending poorly done from a literary standpoint.

You can say the "Geth never wanted" but in the end they did. The Geth didn't have to slaughter and then expell the Quarians. Yet they did.

The geth never wanted to kill the quarians; they only warred until it was clear they had won independence, then ceased and spared the rest. As soon as peace is achieved in ME3, they offer to help the quarians in any way possible.

[CavScout]

Jackal7713 wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

greengoron89 wrote...

jarrettwold wrote...

...and this thread has descended into trolling and rage. I'm ditching out on it.

LOL. This forum has descended into trolling and rage - as of three weeks ago.

And it's still goin' strong.

By the way, I don't need any "evidence" to believe that death threats have been made - the very nature of the RME movement lends itself to the idea. It's a movement characterized by its passion, relentlessness, and audacity in "holding the line", trying to goad BW to giving fans "a better ending."

That, plus the fact that every single thread made in this forum that doesn't fall in line with the movement is quickly mobbed - or even posts that do fall in line, but still degenerate into fiery feuds regardless.

It does the movement no credit, to put it lightly.

It does the counter-movement no credit either that most pro-ending threads have an OP that contains either implied or blatant insults of people who don't like the ending. It's a cycle in which both sides ****** the other off and start insult chains and flame wars. Don't pretend one side is good and the other bad.

I'm not trying to flame, but it seems like some of the pro-enders didn't play ME1 / ME 2  or didn't pay attention to the conversations. The reason why I say this is because they keep missing key points in the lore.

I'd say many of the detractors have forgotten or ignore lore.

[The Angry One]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

1. I'm trying to frame a response to this, but I cannot do so without knowing Sovereign's logic. Unfortunately, it's been a few months since I played ME1 so I have forgotten his logic. I'll see if I can find his dialog with Shepard somewhere.

"You exist because we allow it, and you will end because we demand it."
Sovereign states clearly that the species of the galaxy have been guided to be harvested by the Reapers.
Therefore Shepard is no one to even try to stop Sovereign, who is far older and knows best.

2. Not a bad point, but...

a. Shepard's been there before. Saren 2.0. He isn't searching his mind for complex reasoning to debate with TIM. There's nothing philosophical about their argument, just Shepard saying "they're controlling you" and TIM saying "No they aren't!" "maybe they are..." "I can't fight it!" He isn't using complex brain functions.

Shepard is still fighting, it doesn't take much philosophical power to tell the Catalyst that it's dead wrong, to point to the Geth and the Quarians fighting together against the Reapers.

Besides, do you not see an inherent literary problem of the hero going through hell and back for 3 games then becoming injured and making a galaxy changing decision while being mentally unfit to do so?