286 réponses à ce sujet

[1Nosphorus1]

Geneaux486 wrote...
The post exagerated the elements of the ending to sound ridiculous thereby making them easier to refute.  That is precisely what a strawman is.

You're reading too much into this, this wasn't a debate on why he thought the endings were bad, this was his opinion in relation to the OP's, there was no arguement nor was there any signs of objection apart from you and Cali.

His opinion of the ending was presented in a parody form, that's how he presents it because that's how he sees it, it's not a strawman fallacy because although it may be his own skewed perception of what actually happened in the ending (Which is full of plot holes and inconsistencies anyway) but he has nothing to gain, there is no winner, there is no arguement.

It's not a strawman fallacy, it's a parody.

Modifié par 1Nosphorus1, 29 mars 2012 - 10:48 .

[ashdrake1]

WhiteJoker wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...
I see this misconception a lot.  All three games give us enough information to work with to make informed discussions about where civilization would go after each of the endings.  It's speculation, yes, but based on a multitude of facts we have been given.
Will the Quarians starve?  We know that they're far away from their home planet, but we also know that they have liveships, and have been feeding themselves without a home planet for centuries.
What about the Turians?  Emergency rations combined with the fact that they're now getting along with the Quarians gives us enough information to infer that they aren't doomed either.
The Mass Relays?  Even if the Reapers perish at the end, not only are they themselves salvageable, but so is the wreckage of the Mass Relays.
The endings are ambiguous, yes, but to say that we don't have any information to go on when we speculate is simply untrue.

I'm talking even more basic.  Did any of them survive the battle?  How devestated are the worlds like Thessia/Palavan?  What about non-capital planets or major population centers?  What else was affected if the Destroy option takes out more then just Reapers and the Geth/EDI?  If Shepard selects Control then just how far does his control reach?  If you pick Synthesis does that mean that over time everything becomes a husk?  The fact that you assume they survived at all is also interpretation is nothing in the ending in upon itself indicates that the relays didn't explode in a similar fashion to the Arrival and yet you can say that it wasn't Bioware's intention because they tweeted about it but that's not in the game; that is a specification after the fact.  Using what is actually in the game there is no singular set of facts involving "what happens now?" because it is lacking.

I find it odd that you chose this as an example, as it was actually pretty straightforward.  Synthesis basically altered and strengthened the DNA of all organics with synthetic tissue.  Looking at Joker tells us that the changes are subtle, which is to be expected, since the changes are occuring on a molecular level.  We also see that it stops the synthetic/organic war because the Reapers leave after the humans and others have been synthesized.

All the endings show is that the Reapers believe it will but the Reapers believed there was no other solution save theirs and they admit they were wrong when the Crucible is attached to the Citadel.  The Reapers are proven to be fallible so just because they believe something does not make it so; that has always been the case the only difference is previously the Reapers wouldn't acknowledge this.

Simply because things have been changed doesn't define how much they've been changed.  Looking at Joker only tells us that his physical appearance hasn't, for the most part, changed, but does that mean he hasn't changed?  Has the alteration to his genetic make up altered how he thinks now?  Has it altered how he develops?  Has it altered how he perceives the world?  Furthermore what's to stop somebody from making another full synthetic AI?  And if Joker hasn't been changed that much then does that mean the Geth haven't been changed that much and thus their supposed predilation towards total war hasn't been changed?  Their advantage over organics not removed?  If he has been changed drastically then does this mean that other things have changed as well since we know the trees on whatever planet he's on have undergone similar alterations?  If the Geth are changed have they lost their ability to network together and form an overmind?  If so, how severely does that change them?  Will they resent Shepard for doing something like that to them?  If it hasn't then does that mean former organics can interface with Geth on a similar level or each other?

If what you consider speculation is immediate results then you might have a point but speculation of the ME3 ending is not about immediate results, it's framed as a big picture and we don't see a big picture results.  Functionally this would be like if you told a story about knights and ended it with the introduction of guns.  The speculation isn't about how whatever fight ended; the speculation is about the ramifications of introducing guns into the world.  Synthesis is the gun; what does it do to change things?

Yes, but that is because the game continued the narrative into a sequel.  Unless Bioware had made it so that there were no choices at all involved in the ending, there was always going to be some ambiguity.  Even then, it's not as bad as it could have been, as the player's perspective outlives Shepard, and we get to see the end-result of the final choice.

A "yes but" doesn't render my point moot as my point remains; Mass Effect isn't about making choices and then coming up with your consequences, it's always been about making choices and then seeing the consequences and after effects occur.  Furthermore a "it's not as bad as it could be" argument is also flawed because it doesn't matter if it could have been worse; simply because I could have lost a leg instead of shattering my knee doesn't make the fact that my shattered knee hurts like hell.

I love the majority of your argument, though I disagree with the point.  I love to think about the various points you brought up.  It's top notch speculation.  I also think it's a fine example of the ending being great for letting us think and dwell upon what comes next.

I got all sorts of text out of dragon age telling me exactly what happened.  I forgot most of it in a week.  It was satisfying right then, but forgettable in the long run.  I can't stop thinking about what could be in me3.

Modifié par ashdrake1, 29 mars 2012 - 10:51 .

[CaliGuy033]

InfiniteDemise wrote...

Only if he was actually doing that to refute arguements the OP was making. He
wasn't, he was satirizing the end, which content that the OP didn't create, to explain why HE didn't like it.

The worst you could call it is an appeal to ridicule, but it doesn't follow that it automatically is a strawman.

He was satirizing the end to refute the OP's argument that the end was good, thereby misrepresenting the OP's position about what he liked and enjoyed.

This really isn't that difficult.  Seriously.  

Modifié par CaliGuy033, 29 mars 2012 - 10:51 .

[No Snakes Alive]

Hey everyone, you paid for a videogame, and got an amazing one that lasts 30+ hours, not including the multiplayer. If the last five minutes of it made you throw a tantrum, that doesn't really justify your false sense of entitlement to some sort of refund or correction. That's honestly ridiculous.

I'm all for people disliking the endings, as it's entirely a matter of opinion. But the response the ending has gotten is borderline retarded from a lot of people. Take a look at this thread, for example. If you choose to take everything at absolute face value and wonder how the **** Bioware could rely on deus ex machine space magic plots with red, green and blue choices that all suck from a reaper AI space ghost child, then I can see why anyone would dislike the ending. I don't see it that way though. Neither of us are necessarily wrong, but anyone who hates the series all of a sudden or videogames in general because they couldn't think past what they saw on the screen just doesn't have my sympathy.

[AtlasMickey]

WhiteJoker, I enjoyed reading your post. It's palpably sincere and well thought out. It defies a point-by-point analysis, making it difficult to form a detailed and comprehensive response.

Transhumanism and the Singularity may not be spelled out in the dialogue but their issues are totally ingrained in the narrative, first by their total rejection in the first game, their partial acceptance in the second game, finally leading up to their full embrace by the ending of the third game (e. g. the blanket galactic condemnation of AI, Shepard's resurrection as a cyborg, reliance on EDI).The topics really don't need to be understood as Transhumanism and Singularity for their moral conflicts to feel prescient. These are issues that humanity will have to face someday and the narrative accepts that.

When you have to go outside of a series to define the terms and concepts then you are no longer speculating about that series; you're speculating about the things you got from elsewhere

As a science fiction story, one must necessarily go outside the narrative to define the terms and concepts to a limited extent. Sometimes it goes the other way, and science fiction ends up defining terms and concepts in real world science. But there's no doubting that, if you have never been exposed to real world science, you will be lost in a science fiction narrative. Even outside of science, if you are not exposed to the cultural zeitgeist, you may be lost on some issues in any fictional story. There are passages in Shakespeare where the meaning is lost if you don't understand certain Biblical issues. The entire significance of "The Tempest" may be lost if you were not alive during the British Empire's expansion into the Americas. So there's no question that discussions about fiction are made more meaningful and richer with knowledge outside the narrative and, yes, in some cases it is even necessary.

Modifié par AtlasMickey, 29 mars 2012 - 10:58 .

[ashdrake1]

aliengmr1 wrote...

Maybe if you left out the condescending tone people might be willing to discuss it with you.

You certainly aren't the first and its rather tiresome.

Glad you liked it. There are plenty of threads, articles, and videos that explain every detail.

Pot meet kettle.  I hear your color prefence may be similar.

[1Nosphorus1]

CaliGuy033 wrote...

InfiniteDemise wrote...

Only if he was actually doing that to refute arguements the OP was making. He
wasn't, he was satirizing the end, which content that the OP didn't create, to explain why HE didn't like it.

The worst you could call it is an appeal to ridicule, but it doesn't follow that it automatically is a strawman.

He was satirizing the end to refute the OP's argument that the end was good, thereby misrepresenting the OP's position about what he liked and enjoyed.

This really isn't that difficult.  Seriously.

The OP has nothing in it to make it an arguement on why the ending was good.

This really isn't that difficult. Seriously.

[CaliGuy033]

aliengmr1 wrote...

Maybe if you left out the condescending tone people might be willing to discuss it with you.
 

I sincerely doubt it.  People have created "I like the ending" threads with a wide array of tones, ranging from incredibly deferential to incredibly condescending.  Every single one has been met with some level of disdain (although admittedly that level does vary some).  At this point, I don't believe there's any way you could approach a thread like this and not get a significant segment of people to respond back with some of the stuff you've seen in this thread.

[sean10mm]

The Star Child telling my character that organic-synthetic conflict is inevitable might make more sense if I hadn't spent a good chunk of the game succesfully ending the Quarian-Geth war, making them allies, and uniting them against the Reapers while my pilot was dating an AI, and all without using genocide. Just a thought.

[1Nosphorus1]

sean10mm wrote...

The Star Child telling my character that organic-synthetic conflict is inevitable might make more sense if I hadn't spent a good chunk of the game succesfully ending the Quarian-Geth war, making them allies, and uniting them against the Reapers while my pilot was dating an AI, and all without using genocide. Just a thought.

STRAWMAN!

[ahandsomeshark]

sean10mm wrote...

The Star Child telling my character that organic-synthetic conflict is inevitable might make more sense if I hadn't spent a good chunk of the game succesfully ending the Quarian-Geth war, making them allies, and uniting them against the Reapers while my pilot was dating an AI, and all without using genocide. Just a thought.

really the ending kind of makes half of the 3rd games story pointless (everything with EDI and the Geth).

how did no one think of that?

[CaliGuy033]

1Nosphorus1 wrote...

CaliGuy033 wrote...

InfiniteDemise wrote...

Only if he was actually doing that to refute arguements the OP was making. He
wasn't, he was satirizing the end, which content that the OP didn't create, to explain why HE didn't like it.

The worst you could call it is an appeal to ridicule, but it doesn't follow that it automatically is a strawman.

He was satirizing the end to refute the OP's argument that the end was good, thereby misrepresenting the OP's position about what he liked and enjoyed.

This really isn't that difficult.  Seriously.

The OP has nothing in it to make it an arguement on why the ending was good.

This really isn't that difficult. Seriously.

I don't know why you think having "something in it" (whatever that means) is an even remotely salient point.  The OP argued that the ending was good.  Rather than addressing his points, the guy above mischaracterized the ending, thereby mischaracterizing what the OP said he liked, so that it would be easier to address the OP's argument.

You know what is difficult?  Spelling "argument."  It's a tricky one, to be sure.  Right up there with explaining how a straw-man fallacy operates.

Modifié par CaliGuy033, 29 mars 2012 - 11:09 .

[Hudathan]

More DLC was always part of the business model. What's the one type of content that people would surely want? 'Aftermath' type content that provides exactly what people have been asking for. Whether or not the game should have simply included such content is another subject altogether. But people are freaking out thinking that the entire Mass Effect series ended and there is nothing else coming when there is a 'buy moar DLC' screen staring at them after the credits.

[I am KROGAN]

Oh boy, this is new and exciting, not the OP, the way that the responses unfolded. It's almost like every topic discussing the ending ends up the same exact way.... hmmmm



Edit: on second thought, OP is new and exciting as well

Modifié par I am KROGAN, 29 mars 2012 - 10:59 .

[fle6isnow]

No Snakes Alive wrote...

Really? REALLY?

THIS much outrage over endings that leave a lot up to interpretation in a game series that has stressed player choice from the start?

So let me get this straight: we want obvious black and white choices that answer everything for us in a game about player choice? We don't want thought-provoking endings that leave enough up to our own interpretation that we can come up with theories that reach 10,000+ responses in these forums?

After 100+ hours of some of the very best gaming I've experienced in a life spent gaming, I'm still thinking about the ending more than anything else, and I at the very least love that about it. The ending ties in symbolically, metaphorically, philosophically, etc. with everything from the characters, dialogue and gameplay design of the series itself to real life ideologies about the nature of technology, humanity, theology, and so on.

There's a lot to think about, a lot beneath the surface of the final choices and how they were presented, and a lot to decide for ourselves, which is what Mass Effect has always been about. Shepard and co. told us all along that nothing about our victories in this war would come easy, and I'm glad that carries over to the ending too. I'd much rather figure it all out days - even weeks - later than have Bioware go against everything this series has taught me gaming is capable of and figure it all out for me.

I may be in the minority but I'm okay with that. I'd just like to thank the writers of the ending just as much as everyone else involved in this project for keeping this journey my own until the credits rolled, and helping cement Mass Effect as the best series I've ever played.

I don't think all anti-enders want black and white, hand-holding per se, but some do. And some do want happy endings.

I do definitely think that the endings tied in with the themes from the rest of the series.  I've read an interesting thread that got buried super fast about how the endings are basically analogues of the choices in the first 2 games--Destroy is the ending in the first game, Destroy vs. Control is the ending of the second game, and Synthesis is foreshadowed in our choices in the third game, where we can fundamentally change the Krogan and/or the Geth if we choose. Even in ME3 we are given hints--Garrus and his ruthless calculus, the Geth uploading themselves into the Quarian suits as a kind of synthesis, and of course TIM and his whole schtick about controlling the Reapers. In fact in my 3rd replay now, where I'm actually paying a whole lot of attention to dialogue, the endings are pretty much strongly hinted at (almost bludgeoned, really) on Thessia with your conversation with TIM and Vendetta.

I don't think my choices from the previous games were worthless--in fact they were validated throughout the whole game! And like you, I definitely liked that the ending was very open and had lots to think about. One of the more interesting threads I've read was that thread saying that the endings were racist and offensive, because hell yes, there were parallels with TIM and n-a-z-i-s in WWII and the Starkid AI definitely has racist (or xenophobic) premises. Another interesting read was that thread about the planet Klencory and how it foreshadows the "beings of light" behind the Reapers.

We may be in the minority, but whatever. I liked the endings, I understand how other people can dislike the endings, and liking vs. disliking doesn't make anyone ignorant, uncaring of lore, not a true fan, or whatever.

Modifié par fle6isnow, 29 mars 2012 - 11:07 .

[ashdrake1]

sean10mm wrote...

The Star Child telling my character that organic-synthetic conflict is inevitable might make more sense if I hadn't spent a good chunk of the game succesfully ending the Quarian-Geth war, making them allies, and uniting them against the Reapers while my pilot was dating an AI, and all without using genocide. Just a thought.

I really wish bioware had put in the option to argue with the starchild.  People could have thier Shepard try and argue philosphy with a being that is millions of years old.  It could result in shepard bleeding out and the reapers killing everything.  

Shepard is dying.  There is no button to push, no monster to kill.  No option to shoot harbinger in the face while shouting "Reap this!' then going home to sleep with the chearleader.  Shepard knows he/she is dying and is looking for a solution not a debate with an equivelent god.  If you hesitate all you did means nothing and everything will die.

[Zion60660]

No Snakes Alive wrote...

Hey everyone, you paid for a videogame, and got an amazing one that lasts 30+ hours, not including the multiplayer. If the last five minutes of it made you throw a tantrum, that doesn't really justify your false sense of entitlement to some sort of refund or correction. That's honestly ridiculous.

I'm all for people disliking the endings, as it's entirely a matter of opinion. But the response the ending has gotten is borderline retarded from a lot of people. Take a look at this thread, for example. If you choose to take everything at absolute face value and wonder how the **** Bioware could rely on deus ex machine space magic plots with red, green and blue choices that all suck from a reaper AI space ghost child, then I can see why anyone would dislike the ending. I don't see it that way though. Neither of us are necessarily wrong, but anyone who hates the series all of a sudden or videogames in general because they couldn't think past what they saw on the screen just doesn't have my sympathy.

Sovereign: "We have no beginning. We have no end. We are infinite. Millions of years
after your civilization has been eradicated and forgotten, we will
endure.
"

Sovereign:
"We are eternal. The pinnacle of evolution and existence. Before us, you
are nothing. Your extinction is inevitable. We are the end of
everything.
"

These two quotes, I think, accurately reflect what Soveregin thinks as a villian.It shows both his contempt for organic life and his utter disregard for its existence.

The purpose ME3 gives us is that Sovereign was merely a puppet, who had no thoughts of his own and his actual goal was the preservation of organic life (although in an extremely circuitous way). These conflict. The ending contradicts all of the events of the preceeding games. When we summarize the ending as "a choice between red, blue, and green" it is because the rest of the ending is nonsense, the decisions make all the events in the previous games meaningless (by not corroborating at all to where the story eventually ended up) and are more in line with what we have been trying to PREVENT than do.

The thing that pisses me off, is that it invalidates three great games. Mass Effect 1 and 2 are forever tarnished by their association with the ending of Mass Effect 3. This ending dind't ruin one good game, it ruined three amazing games, and one of the best Space Opera type stories that has been told in a very long time.If it didn't do that for you, then you either didn't pay attention to the rest of the games, didn't really enjoy Mass Effect, or are one of those people who reads the words in a book, without truly understanding them. This ending doesn't ring about speculation, it just ends flatly.

[cogsandcurls]

Geneaux486 wrote...

How does the Space Magic know EDI is controlling a human-shaped body? If it doesn't know, how does it know which organic species to base her new organic components on? (And I mean like really basic things like: if she carbon-based? If she had a turian-shaped body, would she have been given dextro-amino DNA?) If EDI hadn't used Dr Eve's body, would the Normandy itself have become part organic, and how?

How does synthesis work on sentient beings like the geth, who don't neccessarily have mobile forms? Are there servers full of geth somewhere that now have living tissue buried somewhere in there? Please explain. I keep asking this and nobody has any answers for me (even theoretical ones). I'm honestly curious.

We saw what synthesis did to AIs earlier in the game.  The Reaper tech that turned individual Geth programs into fully evolved, thinking, feeling minds.  I would imagine something similar happened to EDI.  It's most likely that the synthesis energy mutated organics and altered tech.  EDI may not necesarilly have gotten DNA, but her already-actualized personality likely evolved even further.

He actually says DNA though. He doesn't say "make synthetics achieve all sentience", he says (quoting): "The chain reaction will combine all synthetic and organic life into a new framework. A new DNA."

And the whole "and there will be peace" summary to the Synthesis ending is fallacious for reasons I'm sure we can all understand - i.e. look at the history between the Krogan and the Turian, a war that had precisely nothing to do with Synthetics. Wars will still happen.

[AtlasMickey]

ashdrake1 wrote...

sean10mm wrote...

The Star Child telling my character that organic-synthetic conflict is inevitable might make more sense if I hadn't spent a good chunk of the game succesfully ending the Quarian-Geth war, making them allies, and uniting them against the Reapers while my pilot was dating an AI, and all without using genocide. Just a thought.

I really wish bioware had put in the option to argue with the starchild.  People could have thier Shepard try and argue philosphy with a being that is millions of years old.  It could result in shepard bleeding out and the reapers killing everything.  

Shepard is dying.  There is no button to push, no monster to kill.  No option to shoot harbinger in the face while shouting "Reap this!' then going home to sleep with the chearleader.  Shepard knows he/she is dying and is looking for a solution not a debate with an equivelent god.  If you hesitate all you did means nothing and everything will die.

Well said.

[Reidbynature]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Thanks for playing.

I respectfully disagree. The endings make everything I felt like I was doing before worthless.

This.  Not only do I disagree with OP, but I believe he entirely misunderstands/misrepresents the points people have made in regards to the ending.

[ticklefist]

Thanks for your input. Was there anything you liked about the cupcakes?

[nwj94]

Watch this (Yes all 39 minutes of it, your a fan boy just like me so that shouldn't be asking to much)

There is nothing artistic, or beautiful in this.

Modifié par nwj94, 29 mars 2012 - 11:05 .

[1Nosphorus1]

CaliGuy033 wrote...I don't know why you think having "something in it" (whatever that means) is an even remotely salient point.  The OP argued that the ending was good.  Rather than addressing his points, the guy above mischaracterized the ending, thereby mischaracterizing what the OP said he liked, so that it would be easier to address the OP's argument.

You know what is difficult?  Spelling "argument."  It's a tricky one, to be sure.  Right up there with explaining how a straw-man fallcy operates.

I should modify every post a minute after to correct the spellings, apologies Overlord.

Anyway, it's fallacy, not fallcy duhhhh

Condescending attitude aside, an argument has points or reasoning’s that are at least backed up by evidence, there is "none" of it in the OP. Now if you'd like to quickly Google what a Straw man fallacy is then I think you'll find that your definition is wrong.

Edit: Should meet Master's approval now.

Modifié par 1Nosphorus1, 29 mars 2012 - 11:11 .

[AtlasMickey]

cogsandcurls wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...

How does the Space Magic know EDI is controlling a human-shaped body? If it doesn't know, how does it know which organic species to base her new organic components on? (And I mean like really basic things like: if she carbon-based? If she had a turian-shaped body, would she have been given dextro-amino DNA?) If EDI hadn't used Dr Eve's body, would the Normandy itself have become part organic, and how?

How does synthesis work on sentient beings like the geth, who don't neccessarily have mobile forms? Are there servers full of geth somewhere that now have living tissue buried somewhere in there? Please explain. I keep asking this and nobody has any answers for me (even theoretical ones). I'm honestly curious.

We saw what synthesis did to AIs earlier in the game.  The Reaper tech that turned individual Geth programs into fully evolved, thinking, feeling minds.  I would imagine something similar happened to EDI.  It's most likely that the synthesis energy mutated organics and altered tech.  EDI may not necesarilly have gotten DNA, but her already-actualized personality likely evolved even further.

He actually says DNA though. He doesn't say "make synthetics achieve all sentience", he says (quoting): "The chain reaction will combine all synthetic and organic life into a new framework. A new DNA."

And the whole "and there will be peace" summary to the Synthesis ending is fallacious for reasons I'm sure we can all understand - i.e. look at the history between the Krogan and the Turian, a war that had precisely nothing to do with Synthetics. Wars will still happen.

A new framework (literally), a new DNA (metaphorically). DNA is a kind of replicator so he means a new kind of replicator that combines results achieved by both synthetic and organic life. He's referring to some very complex and abstract.

[CaliGuy033]

nwj94 wrote...



Watch this (Yes all 39 minutes of it, your a fan boy just like me so that shouldn't be asking to much)

There is nothing artistic, or beautiful in this.

Maybe he's already watched the video and still likes the ending.  Wouldn't that rock your world?