188 réponses à ce sujet

[MegaSovereign]

LOLandStuff wrote...

What I wonder is why Starchild didn't do that in the first place. Why harvest for 10 of billions of years and then offer that option to some random guy who happens to walk in. Besides that the logic is mind boggling.

That option was only made possible with the crucible.

[Tirigon]

MegaSovereign wrote...

LOLandStuff wrote...

What I wonder is why Starchild didn't do that in the first place. Why harvest for 10 of billions of years and then offer that option to some random guy who happens to walk in. Besides that the logic is mind boggling.

That option was only made possible with the crucible.

It's a cosmic lottery and Shepard hit the Jackpot: Being able to decide the future of the universe.

[poerksen]

If shepard is the only one to ever reach that area of the citadel, then how did the designers/previous civilizations of the crucible know what to do and how to build it? None of the current civilizations knew what it was before i was too late (except shepard intervened etc...) Plus, there just happened to be some handles that allows you to control the reapers if you touch them or if you shoot some wirering the reapers die? Furthermore why would jumping into a beam magically transform everyone into a new organic/synthetic lifeform? Why would that end conflicts with synthetics? Does this new race not have the need to build synthetics of their own? I could go on forever asking questions, which makes this ending extremely bad. Feels more like a cliffhanger than an ending.

[What a Succulent Ass]

MegaSovereign wrote...

LOLandStuff wrote...

What I wonder is why Starchild didn't do that in the first place. Why harvest for 10 of billions of years and then offer that option to some random guy who happens to walk in. Besides that the logic is mind boggling.

That option was only made possible with the crucible.

Which somehow interfaces with the Catalyst.

Even though no cycle actually knew what they were building.

Or what its function was.

...Or of the existence of the Catalyst.

A++ writing, would play again.

[EHondaMashButton]

Random Jerkface wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

LOLandStuff wrote...

What I wonder is why Starchild didn't do that in the first place. Why harvest for 10 of billions of years and then offer that option to some random guy who happens to walk in. Besides that the logic is mind boggling.

That option was only made possible with the crucible.

Which somehow interfaces with the Catalyst.

Even though no cycle actually knew what they were building.

Or what its function was.

...Or of the existence of the Catalyst.

A++ writing, would play again.

Or how it would dock with an area no living creature had ever been before.<_<

[MegaSovereign]

They made plans to incorporate it with the citadel. The Prothean VI actually did say that the Catalysts existance was inferred, as ther had to be something controlling the reapers.

[What a Succulent Ass]

Inferred. Not that there is a Godmode AI living in the Citadel.

Which you kind of would have to know if you build a machine that interfaces with it.

[What a Succulent Ass]

Also, the inference had absolutely no basis. The explanation they gave was nonsense.

[Izhalezan]

MegaSovereign wrote...

LOLandStuff wrote...

What I wonder is why Starchild didn't do that in the first place. Why harvest for 10 of billions of years and then offer that option to some random guy who happens to walk in. Besides that the logic is mind boggling.

That option was only made possible with the crucible.

Which makes me question the Crucible being some super weapon built by past generations since Star Kid seems to know how to make it work perfectly with his tech.

[poerksen]

I think its more likely that the crucible is something the "godchild" set in motion.

[JBONE27]

Tirigon wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

I will try to make this as spoiler free as possible.  Mass Effect 3's Synthasis ending got evolution wrong.  There is no ultimate goal in evolution.  It is an ongoing process.  It is how life-forms adapt to their envoronments, and has nothing to do with combining organics and synthetics.

That is all... Thank you. 

Actually it is about random mutations and whether or no an individuum is able to survive and spread them, not about adaptation.

But yea, the ending got it wrong. Just like it got everything else wrong.

I meant to include "Via Natural Selection," but thank you.

[JBONE27]

Frybread76 wrote...

Random Jerkface wrote...

lawp79 wrote...

I'm sorry but after such an amount of time can I just say I do not get the star child thing at all! I mean it is the kid from earth at the beginning right? And the kid from the dreams? So what the frig is he doing there at the end?! Is it some poorly thought out metaphor?

The AI or whatever the Guardian is (because that was explained so well, amirite?) presumably took the form of the figure that most psychologically affected Shepard.

...Because we were all so clearly attached.

It's a shame ithe Star Child couldn't take the form of whomever Shepard chose to die at Virmire in ME1.  I would argue Shepard (and the player) would have more of an emotional attachment to Kaidan/Ashley than to Casper the Ghost.

Or Shepard's LI.

[Uszi]

Carfax wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

There is no ultimate goal in evolution.  It is an ongoing process.   

Not sure I would agree with this premise.  All life is fundamentally teleological in nature, therefore it makes sense that evolution itself would also be goal oriented.

As such, it's undoubted that life forms are becoming increasingly complex, and more capable of expression..

How can evolution have a goal?

Does the strong nuclear force have a goal?  Does gravity?

Is it even useful to talk about the "goal" of gravity?

JedTed wrote...

But the Reapers see themselves as gods so from their perspective it would be the final stage of evolution.

There is no final stage of biological evolution.

Go to merriam-webster.com and decide which version of evolution you want to talk about.  Then, preface your comment by saying, "While biological evolution cannot possibly have a goal..."

And go from there.

Modifié par Uszi, 04 avril 2012 - 10:32 .

[Tim_H]

Heh, some of this "evolutionary goal" reminds me of futurist / "singularity" philosophy in which people believe it is inevitable that we synthesize with our electronics.

In the 1970s, sci-fi predicted regression ("Planet of the Apes")
In the 1980s, sci-fi predicted machine take-over (Terminator)
Now it is synthesis (ME3)

[What a Succulent Ass]

poerksen wrote...

I think its more likely that the crucible is something the "godchild" set in motion.

Except we have no evidence of that either. And it really just makes the point of his existence even more inscrutable.

Lots of speculation.

[Ashilana]

JBONE27 wrote...

I will try to make this as spoiler free as possible.  Mass Effect 3's Synthasis ending got evolution wrong.  There is no ultimate goal in evolution.  It is an ongoing process.  It is how life-forms adapt to their envoronments, and has nothing to do with combining organics and synthetics.

That is all... Thank you. 

If you are curious about how someone could completely misunderstand evolution and think it has an ultimate goal... the game designers have conveniently included a spokesperson on this topic, Mordin's replacement, Padok Wiks.  I don't know if people have bothered putting up his dialogue on youtube yet, but he is a scary scary person.

[What a Succulent Ass]

I've heard that about Wiks. What does he say?

[Ashilana]

Random Jerkface wrote...

I've heard that about Wiks. What does he say?

He believes in an originator that started evolution...and that there are better outcomes for evolution...ones we can help species reach.  It doesn't take a history major to see where that is going.

[poerksen]

Random Jerkface wrote...

poerksen wrote...

I think its more likely that the crucible is something the "godchild" set in motion.

Except we have no evidence of that either. And it really just makes the point of his existence even more inscrutable.

Lots of speculation.

Yeah, I would rather have speculated on the origin of the reapers, than all that nonsense the godchild is spewing out of its mouth. I kind of liked that they were mysterious etc., I did not need to see their creator damnit. Didn't sovereign or harbinger say that the reapers had no beginning or ending, they were infinite..... That statement is kind of contradictory when their creator suddenly pops up hehe, which implies that they did indeed have a beginning. Bioware did a good job of completely ruining and demystifying one of my favorite villains in videogaming.

[Farbautisonn]

Ashilana wrote...

Random Jerkface wrote...

I've heard that about Wiks. What does he say?

He believes in an originator that started evolution...and that there are better outcomes for evolution...ones we can help species reach.  It doesn't take a history major to see where that is going.

-I cant believe I missed that... aw my crap that blows...

[JBONE27]

poerksen wrote...

Random Jerkface wrote...

poerksen wrote...

I think its more likely that the crucible is something the "godchild" set in motion.

Except we have no evidence of that either. And it really just makes the point of his existence even more inscrutable.

Lots of speculation.

Yeah, I would rather have speculated on the origin of the reapers, than all that nonsense the godchild is spewing out of its mouth. I kind of liked that they were mysterious etc., I did not need to see their creator damnit. Didn't sovereign or harbinger say that the reapers had no beginning or ending, they were infinite..... That statement is kind of contradictory when their creator suddenly pops up hehe, which implies that they did indeed have a beginning. Bioware did a good job of completely ruining and demystifying one of my favorite villains in videogaming.

I couldn't agree with you more.  As I said to this other guy, I would prefer the reapers to remain a mysterious force and the ending not to.

[Brohammed]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

Random Jerkface wrote...

The Grey Nayr wrote...

The very criticism of a fictional universe for not holding up some nonexistent obligation to be "realistic" is a big joke in itself. Why do you think they call it "Science Fiction?"

SCIENCE fiction.

You realise you aren't making any sense anymore, right? The reason why this is objectively wrong is because it's internally inconsistent. X-Men's entire premise is fantastic mutation. Superman can fly because he's an alien. For these universes to exist, they establish their frame of reference at the beginning of the story, just as mass effect did with element zero. All stories are a Socratic exercise. They ask one question (suppose we had phlebotonium called "eezo"?) and allow the resulting extrapolations to follow. They adhere to a specific line of logic. At NO point does the narrative imply that the laws of evolution are suddenly taking pages from Pokémon. At no point does it establish that these laws work differently from our own. That is why it's wrong. It's an arsepull and bad.

The Reapers do that when in the very first game when Sovereign describes Reapers, a race of organic/synthetic hybrids as the "pinnacle of evolution.

Also X-Men describes mutation as the "next step in human evolution" on more than one occasion.

The gracedful way to end this is to admit you were wrong and stop posting on it.

[Carfax]

Random Jerkface wrote...

I fail to see how that's proof of anything, but perhaps I'm misunderstanding your argument. DNA doesn't always have specific, purposeful, or meaningful information.

 
Doesn't "always" have doesn't equal doesn't have at all now does it?  I said DNA contains specific, purposeful and meaningful information....in the form of a code.  Thats a fact that no one can dispute.  

Nor is it especially "orderly" or meticulous. When it makes mistakes, it either adapts to them or corrects them, because the punishment for failing to do either is lessened fitness or death. I don't see how that's teleological.

I never said anything about it being especially orderly or meticulous, although to be honest, it is ridiculously well ordered and precise unless absolute perfection is the barometer .  Only a fool would doubt that it isn't, and while we may not always agree, I don't think you're a fool. 

At any rate, the teleological arguement for DNA is strong, because it contains very specific and purposeful instructions required to build an organism in the form of a code.  Using inductive reasoning, one can state that codes like DNA that have an encoding and decoding mechanism always stem from a mind, because there is no purely materialistic process known to man that creates coded information the likes of which is seen in DNA.

Modifié par Carfax, 05 avril 2012 - 08:18 .

[ioannisdenton]

1) ending was worst i ve ever seen, ME in my eyes is same as Dragon age 2. one big gaming dissapointment.
2) change the title PLEASE or post in the OTHER forum. why do not you use he spoilers forum??? this is annoying. Register your game and post in other forum please. youi r are spoiling the game for other people.