43 réponses à ce sujet

[VoodooDrackus]

Hey amaltheaelanor, loved reading your thoughts on the ending. Completely agree with you. Great rundown.

[Nisiar]

Kawamura wrote...

raisinsc wrote...

Again, answering the wrong question. How does that quote invalidate the ideas presented in the Foundation series? The idea of evolution, what is the next step for humanity. Is loss of the individuality the way to achieve universal peace and final evolution. Perhaps, even more poignant is if the author didn't even intend it to be deep but people saw greater themes in it. Kind of an ironic reverse for this game.

Or Philip K. Dick. I'm just naming off the top of my head of course. I'm sure there are many artists who I can't recall or not know about.

You can even see great themes in a painting of a fruit bowl if you tried hard enough.

Here are the questions you should be asking:
Why did you play this game?

Ironic reverses aren't good at hour 99, minute 50 out of 100 hours. 

I meant ironic that for 99hr, 55 min, I was bludgeoned with high level "themes" while gunning down my own genocidal number of enemies and reading through some eye-rolling dialogues and suddenly be told at the last 5 min that this is all meant to be "art".  Art like Star Trek is art?

[amaltheaelanor]

The giant multicolored wave that changed everything through no mechanism that was ever explained? Especially the green one, that caused people to...grow circuits? By transmogrifying parts of them into...silicon?

The green ending especially (but all the endings, to some degree) is not any kind of sci-fi, it's sympathetic magic: throw a synthetic/organic hybrid into the sacrificial fire, use a tool to focus some energy, change everyone in the galaxy into synthetic/organic hybrids. That's how you build a magic spell, not a technological device.

I can see that. However, I think I accepted it because this is clearly the being responsible for the creation of the Reapers, and the Mass Relays. I'm willing to accept that there's a scientific power beyond the understanding of organics (whom, in this universe, have never even discovered Mass Effect technology on their own) that could be used to destroy all the Mass Relays and Reapers. I hadn't considered that about the Synthesis decision (since I've only played through with the Destruction decision). Maybe it's just me willing to suspend my disbelief because I know I tend to forgive errors when I enjoy the whole.

The "synthetics vs organics" theme didn't come out of nowhere, but the "synthetics will always destroy organics" theme came out of nowhere. It's the direct opposite of what is shown in the rest of the story. Whenever that theme comes up throughout the games, the game seems to be saying "It's not that simple, that's a really childish, backward view that will get you in trouble"

And then, in the end, word of god comes down and says "yeah, actually, it is exactly that simple, and we're not even going to argue about it. Now make a choice about how to deal with it."

Furthermore, apart from addressing that theme in a way that was completely out of step with the rest of the series, it's not even the main theme of the game. Organics vs. Synthetics was a subplot. The game was about, more than anything else, the struggle of all life against its own inevitable dissolution, and if anything the organic vs synthetic subplot was about how, at the end of the day, organics and synthetics are both in that fight together. The ending just spits on that, offers a half-thought out dismissal, and walks away.

I think you make some very good points here. I guess I would argue that just because that's how the Starchild thinks things will be doesn't mean that he's right. Something that's further put forth because in this game, you're essentially killing god here. What's done with it after that is up to organics. I like the idea of the Destruction epilogue, for example, because who's to say what will happen in the future? The rise of technology and more Reapers in the future?

And the thing about resolving the conflict between the Quarians and the Geth is that there's no guarantee it will last; just the same as there's no guarantee the truce between the Krogans and the Turians will last. I read a critique stating how miraculous it was that Shepherd manages to resolve hundred year-long conflicts worthy of Israel-Palestine. But what the reviewer didn't mention was that it's easier to get people (regardless of long-standing hatred) to unite in the face of a larger threat. That's something I felt throughout this game, was that these were going to be temporary truces. Who knows what will happen to them once the Reaper threat is eliminated.

[amaltheaelanor]

VoodooDrackus wrote...

Hey amaltheaelanor, loved reading your thoughts on the ending. Completely agree with you. Great rundown.

Thanks! Glad to know you felt the same!

Modifié par amaltheaelanor, 05 avril 2012 - 07:58 .

[Myrmedus]

To be honest, Synthetics vs. Organics as the precipice of the plot did come out of nowhere since before ME3 the main Reaper motivation was on track to be about stopping Dark Energy spread ie. nothing to do with such a conflict.

Synth vs. Orga was just one of many undertone themes present, just like any good literature has multiple themes running through it.

[Karimloo]

Of course you did, YOU FEAR THE WOO.

[crappyjazzy]

I thought you laid out your points extremely well. I also enjoy you're non-argumentative demeanour in presenting them.

Well done.

[Beliyaal]

amaltheaelanor wrote...
I think you make some very good points here. I guess I would argue that just because that's how the Starchild thinks things will be doesn't mean that he's right.

If we're going to chase that angle, shepard would need to have some option to argue with him. The way shepard just dumbly nods along is the narrative's way of saying "this is true, you shouldn't have any doubt about this". 

And the thing about resolving the conflict between the Quarians and the Geth is that there's no guarantee it will last

Irrelevant. The nature of the conflict in the first place already shot the star-child's logic in the foot. The way the geth act throughout the entire conflict shoots that logic in the foot. A war in which the conflict was started by the organics, and broken off by the synthetics the very moment the synthetics were safe, and only rekindled when the organics renewed aggression....gives the lie to the starchild's "synthetics will destroy organics" logic regardless of how you resolve it or how long that resolution lasts. 

[amaltheaelanor]

If we're going to chase that angle, shepard would need to have some option to argue with him. The way shepard just dumbly nods along is the narrative's way of saying "this is true, you shouldn't have any doubt about this".

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Because when I was playing, I was willing to accept that that's what this story ultimately boiled down to, and I so didn't need to feel the need to argue against. If I'm willing to accept the Starchild as the origin of the Reapers (meaning he's been around some millions of years) and given that we still don't know the specific events that led to the creation of the Reapers and the role that Starchild played in it, I'm willing to accept, in-game, that that's what Starchild has witnessed and believed (and I suppose by that extension, I'm even willing to accept that he's right).

Irrelevant. The nature of the conflict in the first place already shot the star-child's logic in the foot. The way the geth act throughout the entire conflict shoots that logic in the foot. A war in which the conflict was started by the organics, and broken off by the synthetics the very moment the synthetics were safe, and only rekindled when the organics renewed aggression....gives the lie to the starchild's "synthetics will destroy organics" logic regardless of how you resolve it or how long that resolution lasts.

Could you be more specific? What about the geth's actions shoots logic (I'm assuming you mean Starchild's logic) in the foot?

I don't agree that it's irrelevant. My point is that people say they don't feel it's logical to claim to the universe is always going to boil down an organics vs. synthetics based on the fact that Shepherd can resolve the conflict the geth earlier in the game. Except that resolution was only brought out by Shepherd's role and her/his need to have them joining in the war against the geth. I think BSG is a good example here, of how things could easily break down between them again. Especially now that the geth have all received individuality.

[amaltheaelanor]

To be honest, Synthetics vs. Organics as the precipice of the plot did come out of nowhere since before ME3 the main Reaper motivation was on track to be about stopping Dark Energy spread ie. nothing to do with such a conflict.

But to be fair, that's only based on what the game creators were toying with the ultimate conflict being about - there's nothing in-game that indicates that.  Unless I'm missing something that you could cite for me?

Modifié par amaltheaelanor, 05 avril 2012 - 08:44 .

[boardnfool86]

Leafs43 wrote...

 You loved the ending because you are incapable of critical thought.


That's all there is to it.

Yeah I disagree, and we'll leave it at that.

@OP - Ender's Game is a great example its been a long time since I've read that book in ages, and could easily be the inspiration for the rachni

[Beliyaal]

amaltheaelanor wrote...
Could you be more specific? What about the geth's actions shoots logic (I'm assuming you mean Starchild's logic) in the foot?

The Geth weren't the instigators of the attack. Furthermore, once they had chased the quarians to a safe distance, they stopped fighting. They also maintained the quarians' homeworld (and all of its organic life) in perfect condition while they were gone.

The starchild wasn't just claiming that there would always be war between organics and synthetics. There's always war between everyone. The war between the quarians and the geth isn't special, it's actually less hostile than the wars between turians and krogan, or turians and humans, or batarians and humans. And compared to the war between the Rachni and everyone else, it was practically a heated game of parchesi. 

The Starchild is actually going further to claiming that synthetics will always exterminate all organics. Not just fight them, but fully annihilate all trace of organic life down to the bacterial level. Meanwhile no synthetic we ever encounter in the series, not even the reapers has shown even the slightest inclination to do that. Starting wars over territory and ideology is irrelevant to that claim.  

Even if you accept that the starchild knows more than we do, and maybe he has secret knowledge of how this will turn out in 40,000 more years, that is still terrible storytelling. Introducing a character in the last 5 minutes to say "everything you thought you learned through all three games is wrong and irrelevant and doesn't matter, now make this choice based on a premise I dictated to you with no evidence, and which has no bearing on the rest of the series, and also destroys everything you've worked for" is not an ending. Regardless of any concerns for realism and verisimilitude, that's not how you bring closure to a story. That's how you invalidate the entire series.

Why did we even bother experiencing the previous 100+ hours of story if it was going to be invalidated in the last 5 minutes by an omniscient VI brat? If nothing we learned or did in the rest of the series mattered, why not just skip straight to that sequence? Game begins. Star brat tells you there's no hope of anything ever working out. Choose red green blue. Game ends. 

Modifié par Beliyaal, 05 avril 2012 - 09:20 .

[amaltheaelanor]

Beliyaal wrote...

amaltheaelanor wrote...
Could you be more specific? What about the geth's actions shoots logic (I'm assuming you mean Starchild's logic) in the foot?

The Geth weren't the instigators of the attack. Furthermore, once they had chased the quarians to a safe distance, they stopped fighting. They also maintained the quarians' homeworld (and all of its organic life) in perfect condition while they were gone.

The starchild wasn't just claiming that there would always be war between organics and synthetics. There's always war between everyone. The war between the quarians and the geth isn't special, it's actually less hostile than the wars between turians and krogan, or turians and humans, or batarians and humans. And compared to the war between the Rachni and everyone else, it was practically a heated game of parchesi. 

The Starchild is actually going further to claiming that synthetics will always exterminate all organics. Not just fight them, but fully annihilate all trace of organic life down to the bacterial level. Meanwhile no synthetic we ever encounter in the series, not even the reapers has shown even the slightest inclination to do that. Starting wars over territory and ideology is irrelevant to that claim.  

Even if you accept that the starchild knows more than we do, and maybe he has secret knowledge of how this will turn out in 40,000 more years, that is still terrible storytelling. Introducing a character in the last 5 minutes to say "everything you thought you learned through all three games is wrong and irrelevant and doesn't matter, now make this choice based on a premise I dictated to you with no evidence, and which has no bearing on the rest of the series, and also destroys everything you've worked for" is not an ending. Regardless of any concerns for realism and verisimilitude, that's not how you bring closure to a story. That's how you invalidate the entire series.

Why did we even bother experiencing the previous 100+ hours of story if it was going to be invalidated in the last 5 minutes by an omniscient VI brat? If nothing we learned or did in the rest of the series mattered, why not just skip straight to that sequence? Game begins. Star brat tells you there's no hope of anything ever working out. Choose red green blue. Game ends. 

Okay, I'm just not understanding some of the connections you're making.  First of all, you're using the Geth as an example, but I guess I feel like since we don't know what brought this whole cycle about - what caused someone, the starchild? the create the Reapers and begin this?  I think I take away from this that he's existed long enough to know this is the case.  Maybe it's just a case of taking on faith - which I realize might make this discussion moot because we'll likely never agree - but you talk of time in terms of thousands, of years, when really, it needs to be talked of in terms of millions.  The only number we've gotten for how long this has been going on is at least 38 million years.  And the galaxy is some billions of years old.  I can understand your frustration as a character introduced at the end to explain everything (which is the very definition of a Deus Ex Machina) but I disagree that's what he is.  He talks for the Reapers, he talks as the one controlling them, he talks as though he is the Reapers.  It's also indicated in the conversation on Thessia with Prothean VI that there's something larger controlling all this - which I realize is late in the series, and so not necessarily a legitimate argument for (though for myself, after having that, I went into the ending anticipating that explanation specifically, and I wasn't disappointed).

And the conversation with the StarChild goes as follows:

Starchild: They're my solution.
Shepherd: Solution? To what?
Starchild: Chaos.  You bring it on yourselves.  The created will always rebel against their creators.  But we found a way to stop that from happening.  To restore order for the next cycle.



Nowhere does he say that synthetics will annihilate organic life down to the bacterial level.  Basically, this is saying there will always be conflict between synthetics and organics.

And I'm still not understanding how this changes the last three games.  What is it there that invalidates "everything we learned in the last three games"?  What is it that's been learned that's been made moot by the revelations of StarChild?  I really am curious to understand here.

And I don't agree that it's terrible storytelling, though I realize that's probably a given at this point.  You indicated earlier that you felt the series was about against insurmountable odds, if I remember correctly, which is fair.  Maybe that explains our diverging perspectives.  I always felt that the game (overall) established itself as being specifically about the Reapers, leaving their motivations unclear enough that if it isn't explained until the end of the last game, I'm okay with it.

Modifié par amaltheaelanor, 05 avril 2012 - 11:38 .

[Beliyaal]

 

Maybe it's just a case of taking on faith

I could respond at greater length, but this is really the crux of it right here. I think introducing something that is that big of a gamechanger, and then insisting your players take it "on faith" is essentially just gear-change ex machina. It's completely unsatisfying, and does nothing to address anything you've built in the rest of the story. You might as well end with "and then the galactic core explodes and everyone dies, the end"

If they wanted to do this reveal, they needed to do it at the end of the second game, and spend all of 3 dealing with it and supporting it and making it fit. Instead, they put it in the last 5 minutes. 

[amaltheaelanor]

Beliyaal wrote...

 

Maybe it's just a case of taking on faith

I could respond at greater length, but this is really the crux of it right here. I think introducing something that is that big of a gamechanger, and then insisting your players take it "on faith" is essentially just gear-change ex machina. It's completely unsatisfying, and does nothing to address anything you've built in the rest of the story. You might as well end with "and then the galactic core explodes and everyone dies, the end"

If they wanted to do this reveal, they needed to do it at the end of the second game, and spend all of 3 dealing with it and supporting it and making it fit. Instead, they put it in the last 5 minutes. 

Maybe saying "take on faith" is a poor word choice on my part.  I feel like there's enough implied about StarChild's existence and relavence to the Reapers to satisfy an arguement again Deux Ex Machina.  I also don't agree that they should've revealed it sooner - but I'm willing to let it be.

[amaltheaelanor]

I am still genuinely curious to know, btw, what it is that people feel about the ending ruined the entire series? I've seen this comment other places, and I'm interested to hear, what is it, as Beliyaal put it, that invalidated everything we learned in the first three games?

And as Nu-Nu pointed out, it could be argued that this is more a "fantasy" than a "science fiction." I'd love to hear what people think would make for a more/better "science fiction" ending.  (I would argue that one way in which I would consider it more "science fiction" is the way that it, in a sense, tries to explain the nature of god and the universe - something I've definitely seen in other sf texts.)

Modifié par amaltheaelanor, 06 avril 2012 - 03:28 .

[Nu-Nu]

amaltheaelanor wrote...

Nu-Nu wrote...

amaltheaelanor wrote...

3. I've read enough epic fantasy (of which
I feel this series is comparable) to know that when you pit a central
protagonist against a larger-than-life (even god-like) evil, it's very,
very rare for that protagonist to survive. Even Frodo sacrificed so
much in his attempts to destroy the Ring that he found himself unable to
return to his own life and, in a sense, died by choosing to go to
Valinor. So while I wouldn't have been displeased if my Shepherd had
survived (and I got to see her future), I would've been very, very
surprised. I actually find myself incredibly sad that my FemShep won't
get to go forward into the new earth, and I found that emotion a
reaction that signals to me how much I enjoyed the game and its finale.

This is probaly the major reason why you like the ending, because it fits a fantasy genre. I'm fine with sci-fi and fantasy mixing together, just not in the last 5 minutes.

I'm very interested by this notion.  I don't disagree with you.  But I know I've seen Mass Effect defined by others as a space opera (which I don't necessarily agree with).  And I think it is pertinent that BioWare came to this from a background of making primarily fantasy-themed RPGs (I would even include KOTOR in that).

Just out of curiosity, what do you feel would've been a good, more "science-fiction" kind of ending?

Well, I don't expect some sort of device that can "magically" transform the whole galaxay and solve all your problems. I expected the device to have more limitations than it had. I expected it to help the army but there still be a lot of sacrifices to make to finish the job. The device was just too powerful for me to believe in it. Fine if it was a fantasy device, that has magic and god and goddess thrown about, so it could be more believable, but from a sci-fi point of view, it's just too godly powerful even for the most advance tech.

I found the device too much of a quick fix to all of Shepard's problems. I wanted to see the army fight. I wanted them to find strength within themselves to survive.

For the war that could end everything, Shepard's death was also a bit too "pretty" for me to find it real, for me to believe in. If she had to die, I would rather have a more gritty ending, like her ramming a ship into a reaper, or staying behind with a bomb, which could have mirrored the virmire non-survivor's death.

There should have been more limitations and the answer to all their problems shouldn't have relied on one device that was too powerful.

[amaltheaelanor]

Well, I don't expect some sort of device that can "magically" transform the whole galaxay and solve all your problems. I expected the device to have more limitations than it had. I expected it to help the army but there still be a lot of sacrifices to make to finish the job. The device was just too powerful for me to believe in it. Fine if it was a fantasy device, that has magic and god and goddess thrown about, so it could be more believable, but from a sci-fi point of view, it's just too godly powerful even for the most advance tech.

I found the device too much of a quick fix to all of Shepard's problems. I wanted to see the army fight. I wanted them to find strength within themselves to survive.

For the war that could end everything, Shepard's death was also a bit too "pretty" for me to find it real, for me to believe in. If she had to die, I would rather have a more gritty ending, like her ramming a ship into a reaper, or staying behind with a bomb, which could have mirrored the virmire non-survivor's death.

There should have been more limitations and the answer to all their problems shouldn't have relied on one device that was too powerful.

Interesting. Thanks for responding.

[TK EL_]

I'm sorry, but the ending was just bad storytelling. The inconsistencies are numerous and the writer(s) of the ending took so much for granted, its startling. When I read that they purposefully took out the investigate option in the starchild dialogue, I gave up right there. They expected us to not question any of the bs the 11th hour kid was saying. That is insult enough.