1057 réponses à ce sujet

[JShepppp]

Subject M wrote...

OP too long to read right now.

Understandable. Sigh. My apologies.

But why would a synthetic post-singularity-entity or group want to kill organics? Even if they where just defending themselves, what is the logic of destroying those who are not involved in hostile action that is crude and primitive?

The Reapers cannot evolve and so are pre-singularity, I think. As for WHY they would care about organics, whoever created the Catalyst can answer that question - and we don't know anything about them.

If forest animals or insects where to repeatedly causing damage to my house or people in the area, they would be dealt with, true, but there would be no logic in exterminating entire species.

Again, the Reapers believe they're preserving organics. This is a distinction in the different paradigms that we have to take into account. 

Further, a purely technological lifeforms would not have the same resource requirements as a organic and would thus not compete for resources. If they would not want to be bothered by organics, they would probably populate a remote corner of the galaxy or even migrate beyond it.

Even if this is the case, organics would ALWAYS be at the mercy of the synthetics. That's dangerous from the Catalyst's point of view. 

Its also very important to not that in a narrative like this, what matters most is shown, not referred to in the last 10 minutes of a series. What is shown is that it is possible for organics and synthetics to co-exists, its even possible for them to merge in different ways.

This is a problem indeed as you point out. The problem is since it is all about the singularity, we cannot really be given evidence either way. It's a logical fallacy of sorts - it cannot be disproven.

[JShepppp]

Subject M wrote...

Sh0dan wrote...

OP's statement about the ending:

It was completely unexpected and out of line with "big" ME themes so far, though - that seems to be true. 

I have to disagree:

Besides the Reaper Invasion Mass Effect's main themes have always been the Geth Rebellion and the Genophage. Nobody can deny that organics dooming themselves with advanced technology hasn't been introduced early in the game. The Krogans are cursed by this bio weapon, driving their race to the edge of extinction. The Quarians created the Geth and lost their homeworld after the rebellion war. The concept of  "consequences of technological progress" has always been there and was executed in two ways: organics vs. organics and organics vs. synthetics. Therefore I cannot understand all the complaints about the inconsistencies of the ending.

Many people claim that diversity is a strong theme, but they are wrong. Letting the Rachni queen live, curing the Genophage or make peace between Geth and Quarian is only player's choice. You can eradicate them all more or less and try to lead humanity to the supreme race in the galaxy.

The conversations with Mordin in ME2 also underline the "singularity" theme.

I guess the point is that the current ending(s) invalidates many of the choices and their consequences in the game.

@Sh0dan: Very valid point. That was a very refreshing take on things. I can agree with that.

@Subject M: Remember the paradigm of the story - the Reapers can only be defeated by the Crucible which can only be fired in certain ways. Choices can shape things here and there but it will all funnel down. As for epilogue scenes for consequences, I hope that they include that in the EC DLC. 

[JShepppp]

Grimgaww wrote...

I'm sure that OP is related to Bioware somehow.

It doesn't matter what the catalyst is saying, you can not end a series of more
than 100 hours of gaming unveiling a new character that doesn't related to anything
before the last 10 min of the whole series.
+ The only info about the catalyst is something like this:

masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Catalyst
"The Catalyst is an ancient and powerful entity of unknown origin that resides within the [/b]Citadel.
Its nature is unclear; it is identified as a machine, but it is never
specified whether it is an AI, VI or something else entirely. Before
being encountered by Commander Shepard, the Catalyst was believed to be the final component necessary to complete the Crucible"

It's disgrace not only to Shepard cycle. It's also disgrace to all cycles before Shepard.


The only reason that i forgive Bioware is because this scene was very emotinal and amazing
(without any sense ofcourse).

Still ME series is the best ever.

Introducing a new antagonist so late is indeed a bad thing. But I wouldn't say it's a disgrace. 

I also am not from Bioware. I'm a college student. 

[Tritium315]

JShepppp wrote...

Tritium315 wrote...

Everything has a non-zero possibility; it doesn't mean everything will happen.

Whatever the synthetic master race is could accidentally create a virus that wipes them all out, and since by your logic anything that can happen will happen then this will eventually occur and wipe out all synthetics. This will in turn allow for organics to evolve from nothing once again (or however the first organics came to be), and rule the galaxy.

So there you go, on a long enough timeline the galaxy will experience periods of synthetic and organic rule, if war is inevitable.

I think the Catalyst is just worried about the possibility of the "cycle" that you mention occurring once by organics being wiped out first. And it's just trying to stop that. Sure, other things may happen after the singularity, but the nature of the singularity means we can't know, and the Catalyst is only worried about organic survival. 

Wait, wait, wait. So when we're talking about the possible war between synthetics and organics it's "since it's a non-zero possibility then it is guaranteed to happen eventually, 100%." But, when we talk about the possibility of synthetics wiping themselves out and thus leaving the galaxy empty for organics to once again take over it's "we can't know."

Seriously, this is your argument?

Modifié par Tritium315, 01 mai 2012 - 05:46 .

[JShepppp]

Sh0dan wrote...

I guess the point is that the current ending(s) invalidates many of the choices and their consequences in the game.

Mass Effect has always pretended more the "illusion of choice" than offering actual choice. The game does so well commenting your decisions, but your choices have never changed the mainstory's narratives. Just imagine the nerdrage in case of getting an "unwanted and horrible" ending because of one small decision that you have made in ME1. Therefore bringing this final choice in the end isn't a bad solution. Nevertheless Bioware could have put more effort in the ending render sequence. Three colours and some slightly different scenes aren't enough.

All people that expected a massive impact of their choices fooled themselves.


Complaints about the introduction of the catalyst are a bit off as well. This child has been introduced in the first ten minutes of the game and kept being an element of Shepard's dreams through the entire game. Honestly, it doesn't matter who exactly the catalyst is. He's just there to speed up the story and fullfil Shepard's final choice.
His concept is similar to the Reapers. The less the player knows, the better.

I can agree with you here. Certain things have to happen, there's no way around that. It's not Skyrim and doesn't try to be.

As for the child, I wasn't upset about the Catalyst's presence, though I was a little weirded out by it being the kid. But yeah, it does make sense given the dream. It's just a form the devs probably thought would signify the figurative "what Shepard's fighting for" in the form of a mocking Catalyst of sorts that was supposed to give the scene additional emotional weightage.

[JShepppp]

Zolt51 wrote...

Grimgaww wrote...
I'm sure that OP is related to Bioware somehow.

Oh yes, anyone who's less than 100% negative about the ending must be on Bioware / EA's payroll. Same old.

Lol Zolt51, thank you. Yeah I'm just a college student who has an unhealthy fascination with the scifi in ME. Finals will be coming around soon so I will be posting less and less not because I don't care but because I'll just end up being busy. Which I know everyone on these forums is anyways lol. 

[JShepppp]

Tritium315 wrote...

JShepppp wrote...

Tritium315 wrote...

Everything has a non-zero possibility; it doesn't mean everything will happen.

Whatever the synthetic master race is could accidentally create a virus that wipes them all out, and since by your logic anything that can happen will happen then this will eventually occur and wipe out all synthetics. This will in turn allow for organics to evolve from nothing once again (or however the first organics came to be), and rule the galaxy.

So there you go, on a long enough timeline the galaxy will experience periods of synthetic and organic rule, if war is inevitable.

I think the Catalyst is just worried about the possibility of the "cycle" that you mention occurring once by organics being wiped out first. And it's just trying to stop that. Sure, other things may happen after the singularity, but the nature of the singularity means we can't know, and the Catalyst is only worried about organic survival. 

Wait, wait, wait. So when we're talking about the possible war between synthetics and organics it's "since it's a non-zero possibility then it is guaranteed to happen eventually, 100%." But, when we talk about the synthetics wiping themselves out and thus leaving the galaxy empty for organics to once again take over it's "we can't know."

Seriously, this is your argument?

Sorry if I was unclear. Let me start from the beginning to be safe just in case. 

We can't know anything after the singularity.

The things the Catalyst cares about - it views it with the "probability being realized after enough time" paradigm, for lack of a better name. 

It cares about organics being wiped out by synthetics. Thus that probability is problematic to it.

As for synthetics wiping out themselves, I don't think it cares. The point is that by the time it's after the singularity, YES, it's a possibility, but that's irrelevant. 

The bottom line is that organics might we wiped out. Any other outcomes don't matter because there's still a chance somewhere that organics might be wiped out. The Catalyst is not willing to take the chance to have organics completely at synthetics' mercy beyond the technological singularity. 

[Tritium315]

JShepppp wrote...

Tritium315 wrote...

JShepppp wrote...

Tritium315 wrote...

Everything has a non-zero possibility; it doesn't mean everything will happen.

Whatever the synthetic master race is could accidentally create a virus that wipes them all out, and since by your logic anything that can happen will happen then this will eventually occur and wipe out all synthetics. This will in turn allow for organics to evolve from nothing once again (or however the first organics came to be), and rule the galaxy.

So there you go, on a long enough timeline the galaxy will experience periods of synthetic and organic rule, if war is inevitable.

I think the Catalyst is just worried about the possibility of the "cycle" that you mention occurring once by organics being wiped out first. And it's just trying to stop that. Sure, other things may happen after the singularity, but the nature of the singularity means we can't know, and the Catalyst is only worried about organic survival. 

Wait, wait, wait. So when we're talking about the possible war between synthetics and organics it's "since it's a non-zero possibility then it is guaranteed to happen eventually, 100%." But, when we talk about the synthetics wiping themselves out and thus leaving the galaxy empty for organics to once again take over it's "we can't know."

Seriously, this is your argument?

Sorry if I was unclear. Let me start from the beginning to be safe just in case. 

We can't know anything after the singularity.

The things the Catalyst cares about - it views it with the "probability being realized after enough time" paradigm, for lack of a better name. 

It cares about organics being wiped out by synthetics. Thus that probability is problematic to it.

As for synthetics wiping out themselves, I don't think it cares. The point is that by the time it's after the singularity, YES, it's a possibility, but that's irrelevant. 

The bottom line is that organics might we wiped out. Any other outcomes don't matter because there's still a chance somewhere that organics might be wiped out. The Catalyst is not willing to take the chance to have organics completely at synthetics' mercy beyond the technological singularity. 

But by your own admission it's a machine that thinks in absolutes. It sees time on a scale of billions and trillions of years. If it engineered the cycle to preserve organics, why not just let things take their course since organics will take over again eventually anyways.

If we assume that the catalyst sees every probability as guaranteed on a long enough timeline then we can assume it forsees synthetics wiping themselves out and allowing for organics to take over. As a machine it can't "care" about one possibility and not another.

Besides that on a long enough timeline everything will either die to the heat death of the universe or be crushed in a big squish. So if the catalyst sees things in absolutes then it shouldn't care about anything since all organics, and synthetics, will die eventually regardless.

[Grimgaww]

JShepppp wrote...

Introducing a new antagonist so late is indeed a bad thing. But I wouldn't say it's a disgrace. 

I also am not from Bioware. I'm a college student. 

I've made the necessary changes to what you've posted:
"Introducing a new antagonist as a 6 years old kid so late is indeed a bad thing. But I wouldn't say it's a disgrace."

Sry man it's disgrace.

Lets say that all what the Catalyst is saying is logical and true, You don't
see it so superficial with regard to whole ME series ???

Modifié par Grimgaww, 01 mai 2012 - 08:55 .

[Krunjar]

Really intelligent post. Wish I could add to it but everything i think of you have covered. Alot of this I inferred myself from the ending which was one of the reasons I liked it. Only thing I didn't like about the ending was the lack of explanation as to what happened next. And hopefully they are going to fix that. Good show!

[lillitheris]

3. If synthetics are the problem and the Catalyst is trying to protect organics, it should just kill Synthetics instead!

Repeatedly killing synthetics can be probelmatic because (a) organics, unimpeded, may eventually create synthetics or AIs that are more powerful than the Reapers; and ( because it does not stop organics from reaching the technological singularity, which the Catalyst views to be the problem. Once the singularity is reached, there is no point going back for organics. Also, this would not be as "helpful" to new organic life as "cleaning the slate" would be.

I'm pretty sure that I posted this earlier, but your entire argument falls apart here, even if we were to grant all your premises, starting from the assumption of infinite advancement. Your argument above has a few errors in it, too, not least of which is equating singularity with invincibility.

Destroying organic species once they reach the point when they can A) fight back and are close to creating AIs is probably the worst possible solution to the problem if you examine it from an efficiency or logistics standpoint.

It's stupid.

You can argue that it's programmed in a way that only leaves it with this solution, but that just means that its programmers were stupid.

There's nothing that you can say that makes it not stupid, because it is.

If you want to argue that it's stupid, but we still have to deal with it because it is what it is and theoretically someone might actually have been stupid enough to come up with this ‘solution’, that's fine.

Modifié par lillitheris, 01 mai 2012 - 07:22 .

[Shadow Shep]

 I know I am most likely in the extreme minority here, but after finally completing the game (didn't want to play cause of import issues for a while) I can say that I wasn't upset with introducing the catalyst so late in the game.  To me speaking with the catalyst felt similar to the idea of someone talking to St. Peter (I think that's the right one) at the gates to heaven or something.  

Okay maybe that was a bad example, but I just didn't feel all that surprised to meet him because throughout the entire game I had my suspicions that the Catalyst was going to in fact be a character of some kind.  
After reading the OP's post, I have to say I found it to be quite interesting.  This is where I probably fall into an even tinier minority...I wasn't all that upset with the ending.  I thought it was actually pretty interesting.  I will admit, however, that I was expecting far worse because I knew a lot of people were upset about it. I was actually expecting the game to roll credits when Shepard gets hit by the beam, before getting up and making way to into the Citadel.  

That being said, I think the ending could have been pretty decent it they had spent more time on it.  There is not nearly enough time spent getting an understanding of the catalyst.  There is also, the random escape of my squadmates to the Normandy, which I still don't fully understand (although I guess it's hard to tell exactly how long I was in the Citadel for).  Also, the final scene on the random planet, with no closure on the rest of the galaxy I did not enjoy.  For me the ending was a big wtf moment, but not the rage quit I was anticipating. 


Sorry for the long post.  I guess what I'm trying to say is that I found the catalyst to be interesting, but I wish it was better explained in game (it's creators for example), and the final cutscene with Joker and crew was bothersome. 

Modifié par DJCubed, 01 mai 2012 - 09:34 .

[malhar34]

Very good points being made. I do agree that this ending COULD have been plausible but the way they wrote it and threw it at us was horrible. Lots of questions left all and all but one minor thing. I am pretty sure in ME3 they say that the crucible was built over many cycles with each race adding a little bit to it.

[mirage2154]

So what's the "technological singularity" comes from anyway? Was it in game or codex, was anything of this sort was explained in hole ME?How can you just fit a term that not related to the game to explain this game? This post does no make sense at all, as your certainty assumption is base on a term that has never ever apeared in game at all. Ana using something like that to explain a game is utterly fail(at least in my opinion). A great idea is when you use the samething to make everyone to resonate with their own understanding, not the a few page long explaination about how it works.

[Wintermaulz]

Dont know if this was posted already, not gonna look, but ill leave this here

[img]http://i.imgur.com/wZr54.gifhttp://i.imgur.com/wZr54.gif[/img]

[malhar34]

mirage2154 wrote...

So what's the "technological singularity" comes from anyway? Was it in game or codex, was anything of this sort was explained in hole ME?How can you just fit a term that not related to the game to explain this game? This post does no make sense at all, as your certainty assumption is base on a term that has never ever apeared in game at all. Ana using something like that to explain a game is utterly fail(at least in my opinion). A great idea is when you use the samething to make everyone to resonate with their own understanding, not the a few page long explaination about how it works.

I dont like the ending at all but this statement is complete ignorance. Technological singularity is a concept that is not made up at all. Look it up on wikipedia it is a very real concept that some futurists think can happen.

And the part of your paragraph I highlighted makes no sense whatsoever. His argument makes sense and what he cannot explain he has explicitly stated. There are probably more holes we can ask about but that is just grasping at straws. OP is trying to make sense of the ending with as much evidence as possible. Maybe there is some speculation but the ending whether good or bad was not crystal clear and this is the current discussion. #Stayontopic/Learntoanalyzereadings.

[marky1607]

malhar34 wrote...

Very good points being made. I do agree that this ending COULD have been plausible but the way they wrote it and threw it at us was horrible. Lots of questions left all and all but one minor thing. I am pretty sure in ME3 they say that the crucible was built over many cycles with each race adding a little bit to it.

Yes, I can confirm that Javik says that information (that the Crucible wasn't originally Prothean design but every race in each cycle improves the design of Crucible by adding something of their own) in conversation at the end of Horizon mission or in first conversation with Javik after Horizon mission. Of course, for players that don't have From Ashes DLC, they will not have Javik as squadmate and they won't hear that information about the Crucible.

[mirage2154]

malhar34 wrote...

mirage2154 wrote...

So what's the "technological singularity" comes from anyway? Was it in game or codex, was anything of this sort was explained in hole ME?How can you just fit a term that not related to the game to explain this game? This post does no make sense at all, as your certainty assumption is base on a term that has never ever apeared in game at all. Ana using something like that to explain a game is utterly fail(at least in my opinion). A great idea is when you use the samething to make everyone to resonate with their own understanding, not the a few page long explaination about how it works.

I dont like the ending at all but this statement is complete ignorance. Technological singularity is a concept that is not made up at all. Look it up on wikipedia it is a very real concept that some futurists think can happen.

And the part of your paragraph I highlighted makes no sense whatsoever. His argument makes sense and what he cannot explain he has explicitly stated. There are probably more holes we can ask about but that is just grasping at straws. OP is trying to make sense of the ending with as much evidence as possible. Maybe there is some speculation but the ending whether good or bad was not crystal clear and this is the current discussion. #Stayontopic/Learntoanalyzereadings.

Sorry if my post was no very clear, as english is not my first languge. I will try my best explain that highted part of my post. I believe that best piece of art is not something you have to back up with a few page of speculation, in opposite when you see a great piece of art it cause you to resonace with you own experince and come up with your own understanding. 

If you think I am ignorance, it is you privilege. However, I have the privilege to back my opinoin as I am focus on game it self not the information ouside the game. When you using certainty assumption to back you idea it's important to chose you stand poits. For example ME series all assumpted that there's such thing as Mass Effect(aka the adark energy), this create and make all the miracle happening in the Me universe. However in all series of game I have never hear of anything like "
technological singularity "(with I would be inlightened if I could heard it fron you), and when I read thing I tende to find out if a person is speaking fact or not. And the fact as far as ME consern is the codex. Anything outside of it would be speculation, if the game dev disided to introduce any of the those concept it would be in game. As I said anything you have to provide that needs outside source is a lose in my opinion.

[Subject M]

Tritium315 wrote...

Subject M wrote...

Tritium315 wrote...

Sh0dan wrote...

Getting an "unwanted and horrible" ending because of one small decision that you have made in ME1 is of course not something we want, but that is not what I am referring to. I am referring to a narrative that gives the player a sense of agency and being able to be part of a fictive community that makes a significant and satisfying difference in the outcome of that narrative.
Role-playing games rely on the notion that the player has some type of agency be it based on action or pre-determined choice. The point is that the gaming experience should reflect the choices and wishes of the player in a satisfying way by lining up the narrative points and choices in a way you as a player actively influence them to line up within the story. The catalyst and the ending does not line up well at all, and that is why people are upset and why it is bad from a narrative and rpg point of view.

The final choice of Mass Effect 3 is on a completely new level compared to all your other choices. Letting some scientist live his negligible life shouldn't have an impact on defeating the Reapers. Let's face it: even the Genophage and Quarian conflict are minor issues compared to the Reaper threat.
Legion and Tali are best friends now. Does it matter? The Reapers cannot be beaten conventionally, therefore the additional military support isn't a big deal.
The triviality of all these decisions is actually pretty consistent with the concept of the Reapers. The destruction of all advanced races is inevitable, the cycle cannot be broken and there's no way to beat the reapers in a classical war. Only a Deus Ex Machina - the Catalyst -  can speed up and end the story without breaking all lore rules set up by ME 1&2.

All this hate on the "space brat",  "space child" and all his other nicknames is the result of having to crush the player's expectations in the end. A few players even demand fighting and beating the Reapers conventionally. It's obvious here, that Bioware overwhelmed (intellectually) a part of its fanbase.
The public drama and typical internet herd behaviour did the rest.

Why can't the Reapers be beat conventionally?

Simply saying they can't doesn't make it so. This is a fictional story and anything, within reason, is possible, and if a Diablos Ex Machina in the 11th hour is within reason then so should beating the Reapers conventionally. To say the current ending is the only way they can tie up the trilogy without "breaking the lore" is assinine as the current ending manages to break not only the lore but the plot, all sense of immersion, and basic concepts of science (a new DNA, really?). The ending is nothing more than bad writing, period.

I think its quite clear that the reapers can not be beaten conventionally. Its sated many times in the game and its not their narrative function.

Because the ending of a game can't invalidate previously stated information right? Like how the entire first game was about Sovereign not being able to activate the citadel when, oh wait, the citadel was the king of the reapers, so why did he even need to hang around and activate it. Something like that would never happen.

Or how about how the original rachni wars (1000+ years ago) was Sovereign's first attempt at getting at the citadel, and when that failed he schemed for god knows how long, until mass effect 1. And when that plan failed the reapers tried using the collectors, and when THAT plan failed they just rolled in conventionally over the course of what, a few months? No, a game would never go against what has been previously stated, that'd be unheard of.

You can't defend the ending by saying other endings would go against one aspect of the lore/narrative when the ending you're defending butchers several others. Fact of the matter is conventionally beating the Reapers makes a hell of a lot more sense than what we got, especially since the entire third game has everyone (in particular Javik) saying how this cycle is special and how we are more prepared than ever for the Reaper invasion and how we might actually stand a chance.

As for narrative function, that's the same cop out as "artistic integrity." The Reaper's original "narrative function" was to be unknown massacre machines that killed simply because; no explanation required. They were space Cthulhu's; robotic eldritch abominations that simply existed to end lives, and it was our mission to find some way to defeat them. Bioware butchered that "narrative function" by giving them a purpose, and a ****ty one that's out of left field at that. If Sovereign, in your very first conversation way back in ME1, had stated things like "you don't understand Shepard, we are here to preserve you, protect you from your own demise." then you'd have a point. Unfortunately for your argument, what Sovereign actually said was "We are eternal. The pinnacle of evolution and existence. Before us, you are nothing. Your extinction is inevitable. We are the end of everything." and "Your words are as empty as your future. I am the Vanguard of your destruction." Yea, that really sounds like someone trying to save us from ourselves.

We are talking about pretty basic narrative functions here in the form of thematics.

Yes its true that it is might seem a bit strange that Sovereign  was trying to activate the citadel in ME1 and open the gate to the Reaper Armada. But it is possible to imagine that Sovereign was actually also atempting to activate the catalyst who is inactive between cycles.

And if the Reapers could be defeated conventinally it would be a cheezy Jerry Bruckheimer-type production.
Otherwise, the cosmic elder space gods can not be defeated by shooting stuff at them. The reapers might view organics in their current form as useless, its only when harvested that they can become something great and meaningful.

[Richard 060]

I can see where mirage2154 is coming from regarding the 'technological singularity' and it's use as an excuse/defense for the Catalyst's arguments.

It might indeed make for an acceptable means to take the Catalyst at face value for those who subscribe to the theory, but here's the problem:

- For starters, the singularity is almost akin to philosophical conjecture - it's a well-reasoned extrapolation based on logic, but it's not an inevitability by any means. Treating it as inevitable to make the Catalyst work as part of the narrative is a terribly unscientific misapplication, frankly - it's as bad as when sloppy tabloid journalists take a possible health risk somewhere, and present it as fact (the MMR vaccine, for one).

- More crucially, it's really bad form on the part of the writers to assume that most gamers would even be aware of the technological singularity hypothesis. I can't imagine they'd be so lazy as to feel that they could base the ending to the trilogy on something that is very far from being common knowledge without a shred of establishment or explanation in the story beforehand.

Like with movies where the filmakers excuse the poor story execution of their film, by asking the viewer to fill in the gaps by watching the Director's Cut/deleted scenes, or reading a tie-in publication, if your story doesn't work without the aid of supplemental material which many audience members may not have, then you have failed your job as a storyteller.

Modifié par Richard 060, 01 mai 2012 - 12:55 .

[Subject M]

JShepppp wrote...

Subject M wrote...

OP too long to read right now.

Understandable. Sigh. My apologies.

But why would a synthetic post-singularity-entity or group want to kill organics? Even if they where just defending themselves, what is the logic of destroying those who are not involved in hostile action that is crude and primitive?

The Reapers cannot evolve and so are pre-singularity, I think. As for WHY they would care about organics, whoever created the Catalyst can answer that question - and we don't know anything about them.

If forest animals or insects where to repeatedly causing damage to my house or people in the area, they would be dealt with, true, but there would be no logic in exterminating entire species.

Again, the Reapers believe they're preserving organics. This is a distinction in the different paradigms that we have to take into account. 

Further, a purely technological lifeforms would not have the same resource requirements as a organic and would thus not compete for resources. If they would not want to be bothered by organics, they would probably populate a remote corner of the galaxy or even migrate beyond it.

Even if this is the case, organics would ALWAYS be at the mercy of the synthetics. That's dangerous from the Catalyst's point of view. 

Its also very important to not that in a narrative like this, what matters most is shown, not referred to in the last 10 minutes of a series. What is shown is that it is possible for organics and synthetics to co-exists, its even possible for them to merge in different ways.

This is a problem indeed as you point out. The problem is since it is all about the singularity, we cannot really be given evidence either way. It's a logical fallacy of sorts - it cannot be disproven.

Who said that the reapers can not evolve? You evolve by adapting to new information. There is nothing I am aware of that states that they can not improve or adapt their design, any sapient machine intelligence should be able to do that (unless they have a unbreakable programming block that forbids them to improve and respond effectively to their environment ) and one way they do that is no doubt through assimilating new races.

Given that the reapers are far beyond what even the Geth can comprehend, they are clearly post-singularity.

The reapers believe they are helping organics, yes. by saving them from synthetics who they believe will always rebel against them and wipe them all out (But the presence of the Reapers themselves proves this not the case as they themselves are proof that synthetic life can behave differently then just wiping out organics. Even in a universe without any reapers, their potential to exist exists, and so are probably other less genocidal configurations).

Organics will only always be at the mercy of more advanced synthetics as long as they are of opposite interests and as long as they are two distinguishable categories. The catalyst admits that synthesis is the next step.

And yes, the problem is that the ending is based on information that contradicts much of what can be achieved in the story and its apparent thematics. If the character you play and the community that character is part of can not break the cycle in a meaningful way and "create their own future", but are forced to "react" only  to alternatives dictated and predefined by some new character that pops up the last minute, then something is very wrong, especially given how the rest of the story has played out.

Modifié par Subject M, 01 mai 2012 - 12:48 .

[Tritium315]

Subject M wrote...

Tritium315 wrote...

Subject M wrote...

Tritium315 wrote...

Sh0dan wrote...

Getting an "unwanted and horrible" ending because of one small decision that you have made in ME1 is of course not something we want, but that is not what I am referring to. I am referring to a narrative that gives the player a sense of agency and being able to be part of a fictive community that makes a significant and satisfying difference in the outcome of that narrative.
Role-playing games rely on the notion that the player has some type of agency be it based on action or pre-determined choice. The point is that the gaming experience should reflect the choices and wishes of the player in a satisfying way by lining up the narrative points and choices in a way you as a player actively influence them to line up within the story. The catalyst and the ending does not line up well at all, and that is why people are upset and why it is bad from a narrative and rpg point of view.

The final choice of Mass Effect 3 is on a completely new level compared to all your other choices. Letting some scientist live his negligible life shouldn't have an impact on defeating the Reapers. Let's face it: even the Genophage and Quarian conflict are minor issues compared to the Reaper threat.
Legion and Tali are best friends now. Does it matter? The Reapers cannot be beaten conventionally, therefore the additional military support isn't a big deal.
The triviality of all these decisions is actually pretty consistent with the concept of the Reapers. The destruction of all advanced races is inevitable, the cycle cannot be broken and there's no way to beat the reapers in a classical war. Only a Deus Ex Machina - the Catalyst -  can speed up and end the story without breaking all lore rules set up by ME 1&2.

All this hate on the "space brat",  "space child" and all his other nicknames is the result of having to crush the player's expectations in the end. A few players even demand fighting and beating the Reapers conventionally. It's obvious here, that Bioware overwhelmed (intellectually) a part of its fanbase.
The public drama and typical internet herd behaviour did the rest.

Why can't the Reapers be beat conventionally?

Simply saying they can't doesn't make it so. This is a fictional story and anything, within reason, is possible, and if a Diablos Ex Machina in the 11th hour is within reason then so should beating the Reapers conventionally. To say the current ending is the only way they can tie up the trilogy without "breaking the lore" is assinine as the current ending manages to break not only the lore but the plot, all sense of immersion, and basic concepts of science (a new DNA, really?). The ending is nothing more than bad writing, period.

I think its quite clear that the reapers can not be beaten conventionally. Its sated many times in the game and its not their narrative function.

Because the ending of a game can't invalidate previously stated information right? Like how the entire first game was about Sovereign not being able to activate the citadel when, oh wait, the citadel was the king of the reapers, so why did he even need to hang around and activate it. Something like that would never happen.

Or how about how the original rachni wars (1000+ years ago) was Sovereign's first attempt at getting at the citadel, and when that failed he schemed for god knows how long, until mass effect 1. And when that plan failed the reapers tried using the collectors, and when THAT plan failed they just rolled in conventionally over the course of what, a few months? No, a game would never go against what has been previously stated, that'd be unheard of.

You can't defend the ending by saying other endings would go against one aspect of the lore/narrative when the ending you're defending butchers several others. Fact of the matter is conventionally beating the Reapers makes a hell of a lot more sense than what we got, especially since the entire third game has everyone (in particular Javik) saying how this cycle is special and how we are more prepared than ever for the Reaper invasion and how we might actually stand a chance.

As for narrative function, that's the same cop out as "artistic integrity." The Reaper's original "narrative function" was to be unknown massacre machines that killed simply because; no explanation required. They were space Cthulhu's; robotic eldritch abominations that simply existed to end lives, and it was our mission to find some way to defeat them. Bioware butchered that "narrative function" by giving them a purpose, and a ****ty one that's out of left field at that. If Sovereign, in your very first conversation way back in ME1, had stated things like "you don't understand Shepard, we are here to preserve you, protect you from your own demise." then you'd have a point. Unfortunately for your argument, what Sovereign actually said was "We are eternal. The pinnacle of evolution and existence. Before us, you are nothing. Your extinction is inevitable. We are the end of everything." and "Your words are as empty as your future. I am the Vanguard of your destruction." Yea, that really sounds like someone trying to save us from ourselves.

We are talking about pretty basic narrative functions here in the form of thematics.

Yes its true that it is might seem a bit strange that Sovereign  was trying to activate the citadel in ME1 and open the gate to the Reaper Armada. But it is possible to imagine that Sovereign was actually also atempting to activate the catalyst who is inactive between cycles.

And if the Reapers could be defeated conventinally it would be a cheezy Jerry Bruckheimer-type production.
Otherwise, the cosmic elder space gods can not be defeated by shooting stuff at them. The reapers might view organics in their current form as useless, its only when harvested that they can become something great and meaningful.

Did you gloss over the entire fourth paragraph or is your method of debate to repeat the same thing over and over and hope it sounds intelligent at some point?

As to your points: Conventional defeat would far less cheesy than some godkid pulling a deus ex machina (hell, diablous ex machina since all the choices he offers suck) at the 11th hour of the game. Ridiculous, nonsensical twists have become so cliche as to be expected at this point, there's nothing special about them.

Additionally, the Reapers stopped being cosmic elder space gods when their motivations were explained as trying to preserve organics and not simply kill everything.

Edit: Also if Sovereign can remain awake between cycles, why can't the king of the reapers? Wouldn't it be easier to monitor galacitc civilization from the seat of its power?

Modifié par Tritium315, 01 mai 2012 - 02:33 .

[Subject M]

Tritium315 wrote...

Subject M wrote...

Tritium315 wrote...

Subject M wrote...

Tritium315 wrote...

Sh0dan wrote...

Getting an "unwanted and horrible" ending because of one small decision that you have made in ME1 is of course not something we want, but that is not what I am referring to. I am referring to a narrative that gives the player a sense of agency and being able to be part of a fictive community that makes a significant and satisfying difference in the outcome of that narrative.
Role-playing games rely on the notion that the player has some type of agency be it based on action or pre-determined choice. The point is that the gaming experience should reflect the choices and wishes of the player in a satisfying way by lining up the narrative points and choices in a way you as a player actively influence them to line up within the story. The catalyst and the ending does not line up well at all, and that is why people are upset and why it is bad from a narrative and rpg point of view.

The final choice of Mass Effect 3 is on a completely new level compared to all your other choices. Letting some scientist live his negligible life shouldn't have an impact on defeating the Reapers. Let's face it: even the Genophage and Quarian conflict are minor issues compared to the Reaper threat.
Legion and Tali are best friends now. Does it matter? The Reapers cannot be beaten conventionally, therefore the additional military support isn't a big deal.
The triviality of all these decisions is actually pretty consistent with the concept of the Reapers. The destruction of all advanced races is inevitable, the cycle cannot be broken and there's no way to beat the reapers in a classical war. Only a Deus Ex Machina - the Catalyst -  can speed up and end the story without breaking all lore rules set up by ME 1&2.

All this hate on the "space brat",  "space child" and all his other nicknames is the result of having to crush the player's expectations in the end. A few players even demand fighting and beating the Reapers conventionally. It's obvious here, that Bioware overwhelmed (intellectually) a part of its fanbase.
The public drama and typical internet herd behaviour did the rest.

Why can't the Reapers be beat conventionally?

Simply saying they can't doesn't make it so. This is a fictional story and anything, within reason, is possible, and if a Diablos Ex Machina in the 11th hour is within reason then so should beating the Reapers conventionally. To say the current ending is the only way they can tie up the trilogy without "breaking the lore" is assinine as the current ending manages to break not only the lore but the plot, all sense of immersion, and basic concepts of science (a new DNA, really?). The ending is nothing more than bad writing, period.

I think its quite clear that the reapers can not be beaten conventionally. Its sated many times in the game and its not their narrative function.

Because the ending of a game can't invalidate previously stated information right? Like how the entire first game was about Sovereign not being able to activate the citadel when, oh wait, the citadel was the king of the reapers, so why did he even need to hang around and activate it. Something like that would never happen.

Or how about how the original rachni wars (1000+ years ago) was Sovereign's first attempt at getting at the citadel, and when that failed he schemed for god knows how long, until mass effect 1. And when that plan failed the reapers tried using the collectors, and when THAT plan failed they just rolled in conventionally over the course of what, a few months? No, a game would never go against what has been previously stated, that'd be unheard of.

You can't defend the ending by saying other endings would go against one aspect of the lore/narrative when the ending you're defending butchers several others. Fact of the matter is conventionally beating the Reapers makes a hell of a lot more sense than what we got, especially since the entire third game has everyone (in particular Javik) saying how this cycle is special and how we are more prepared than ever for the Reaper invasion and how we might actually stand a chance.

As for narrative function, that's the same cop out as "artistic integrity." The Reaper's original "narrative function" was to be unknown massacre machines that killed simply because; no explanation required. They were space Cthulhu's; robotic eldritch abominations that simply existed to end lives, and it was our mission to find some way to defeat them. Bioware butchered that "narrative function" by giving them a purpose, and a ****ty one that's out of left field at that. If Sovereign, in your very first conversation way back in ME1, had stated things like "you don't understand Shepard, we are here to preserve you, protect you from your own demise." then you'd have a point. Unfortunately for your argument, what Sovereign actually said was "We are eternal. The pinnacle of evolution and existence. Before us, you are nothing. Your extinction is inevitable. We are the end of everything." and "Your words are as empty as your future. I am the Vanguard of your destruction." Yea, that really sounds like someone trying to save us from ourselves.

We are talking about pretty basic narrative functions here in the form of thematics.

Yes its true that it is might seem a bit strange that Sovereign  was trying to activate the citadel in ME1 and open the gate to the Reaper Armada. But it is possible to imagine that Sovereign was actually also atempting to activate the catalyst who is inactive between cycles.

And if the Reapers could be defeated conventinally it would be a cheezy Jerry Bruckheimer-type production.
Otherwise, the cosmic elder space gods can not be defeated by shooting stuff at them. The reapers might view organics in their current form as useless, its only when harvested that they can become something great and meaningful.

Did you gloss over the entire fourth paragraph or is your method of debate to repeat the same thing over and over and hope it sounds intelligent at some point?

As to your points: Conventional defeat would far less cheesy than some godkid pulling a deus ex machina (hell, diablous ex machina since all the choices he offers suck) at the 11th hour of the game. Ridiculous, nonsensical twists have become so cliche as to be expected at this point, there's nothing special about them.

Additionally, the Reapers stopped being cosmic elder space gods when their motivations were explained as trying to preserve organics and not simply kill everything.

Edit: Also if Sovereign can remain awake between cycles, why can't the king of the reapers? Wouldn't it be easier to monitor galacitc civilization from the seat of its power?

Don't be like that. There is no reason to take that tone.

I consider conventional victory thematically childish and overly self-glorifying (its an important lesson that you can not always win by martial might), as is the godchilds reasoning. I dont see any of them as compatible with the overall tone of the story. They both cheapen the Reapers.  I do think that it would be fitting to have the option to try to fight then conventionally but that it would always fail, because attacking them heads on is not attacking their weak spot, adressng their reason for harvesting and changing the conditions that motivates them in the first place is, however. As is possible also attacking the reapers through the catalyst (if the catalyst is somehow connected to and controlling the Reapers).Its all in my thread that I mentioned earlier.

Its true that the Reaper stopped being driven my unknown motivation, but it does not compromise them as a cosmic force just because they depart from the Lovecraftan horror-entities

The catalyst must have been inactive or otherwise not present on the citadel for the story to make any sense. That is why. The fact that the Reapers are inactive between the cycles at least makes that a possibility.

Modifié par Subject M, 01 mai 2012 - 03:02 .

[marky1607]

JShepppp wrote...

Welcome to BSN dude, glad to have you here. As for how the Catalyst/Reapers were created, I have no idea at all. As for looping, the idea is to stop it from continuing and reaching a certain point. The loop itself doesn't seem to be a problem to them for some reason, though you're right - the stagnation that it invites is weird for machines to accept. 

Additionally, I agree with the rest of you that argue that this case cannot be reevaluated and changed if organics and synthetics find the way to coexist (like geth and quarians) - hence the circular logic from beginning of my post and computer behavior that doesn't reassess the conditions. And no, I don't see the Crucible as means that jumps in to alternate that "flaud" computer logic because the Reapers themselves should have full situational awareness programmed in them and they should react differently if certain conditions in galaxy are changed and there is no need to reap organic life to ultimately stop synthetic life.

I'm sorry if I don't understand here, but it sounds like you're saying the geth/quarians are irrelevant (Catalyst's opinion) but that it should still reassess its solution. That sounds contradictory so I think I'm misunderstanding something. 

About Reapers being fully aware and autonomous, the Catalyst has control over them, though we don't know if it's their thoughts, actions, or both.

I'm sorry, I've got that statement a little entangled. I agreed with the rest of the fans that have the following point: Catalyst should see that Quarians and Geth are working together and that this is new situation that contradicts Catalysts initial motivation for Reapers. I've wanted to say thet Geth/Quarian cooperation is indeed very relevant and Catalyst didn't include that in the possible outcome.

One thought just came to me. For any given reason, if Catalyst can do all those options (control, synthesis and destroy, for me synthesis is entirely unbelivable), we can conclude that he has almost infine power over galaxy, espicially if he has the means to rewrite DNA. If that is so, there could easily be an option where energy wave rewrites the code of the synthetics to be more ethically and morally openminded towards organics. I can see this as much more plausable solution than energy wave that rearrenges DNA to combine organic and synthetic life. And one more fact - synthetic life has no DNA. Maybe in some future, science will might emulate DNA strands with nanotechnology but it still won't be DNA in true sense.

[sp0ck 06]

marky1607 wrote...

JShepppp wrote...

Welcome to BSN dude, glad to have you here. As for how the Catalyst/Reapers were created, I have no idea at all. As for looping, the idea is to stop it from continuing and reaching a certain point. The loop itself doesn't seem to be a problem to them for some reason, though you're right - the stagnation that it invites is weird for machines to accept. 

Additionally, I agree with the rest of you that argue that this case cannot be reevaluated and changed if organics and synthetics find the way to coexist (like geth and quarians) - hence the circular logic from beginning of my post and computer behavior that doesn't reassess the conditions. And no, I don't see the Crucible as means that jumps in to alternate that "flaud" computer logic because the Reapers themselves should have full situational awareness programmed in them and they should react differently if certain conditions in galaxy are changed and there is no need to reap organic life to ultimately stop synthetic life.

I'm sorry if I don't understand here, but it sounds like you're saying the geth/quarians are irrelevant (Catalyst's opinion) but that it should still reassess its solution. That sounds contradictory so I think I'm misunderstanding something. 

About Reapers being fully aware and autonomous, the Catalyst has control over them, though we don't know if it's their thoughts, actions, or both.

I'm sorry, I've got that statement a little entangled. I agreed with the rest of the fans that have the following point: Catalyst should see that Quarians and Geth are working together and that this is new situation that contradicts Catalysts initial motivation for Reapers. I've wanted to say thet Geth/Quarian cooperation is indeed very relevant and Catalyst didn't include that in the possible outcome.

One thought just came to me. For any given reason, if Catalyst can do all those options (control, synthesis and destroy, for me synthesis is entirely unbelivable), we can conclude that he has almost infine power over galaxy, espicially if he has the means to rewrite DNA. If that is so, there could easily be an option where energy wave rewrites the code of the synthetics to be more ethically and morally openminded towards organics. I can see this as much more plausable solution than energy wave that rearrenges DNA to combine organic and synthetic life. And one more fact - synthetic life has no DNA. Maybe in some future, science will might emulate DNA strands with nanotechnology but it still won't be DNA in true sense.

I don't see how the Quarian/Geth cooperation should change the Catalysts' mind.  Its an alliance only a few days old forged out of complete desperation, and is almost certainly doomed to failure however you look at it.  From the Catalysts' point of view, having observed probably millions of cycles, I don't think "look! these synthetics and organics, who have been fighting for centuries, are currently not killing each other!" is going to change its mind.

The problem is, Shepard should be able to bring this up, and have the Catalyst counter.  That was the problem I had with the Catalyst:  not the idea of it, but how short and one sided the conversation with it was.