279 réponses à ce sujet

[Alex_SM]

Amioran wrote...

D) As for plausibility: it can be important in the case we are sure the saga will not continue, but in this case we don't know it yet. Hell, we don't know either if this ending is a true ending or not. So all of this talking about "plot-holes" or "space magic" is supremely premature and can be either counterproductive as I've explained elsewhere.

Using a plot device by the face, and explaining why it wasn't magic in another story a couple of years after, is cheating. Bad writing. 

Any important plot device (most important if it is the climax of the story) must have been presented and explained way before it's used. 

We were told the Crucible is "some sort of weapon", so making it capable of destroying the reapers makes sense. As everything is reaper tech, it still makes sense that it may allow someone to control them. But how can any of the information of the game show that it makes sense for it to turn organics into semi-synthetics, and synthetics into semi-organics? It doesn't make any sense, and that ability is never introduced. 

[Alex_SM]

Amioran wrote...

Alex_SM wrote...
The Geth and Edi don't choose to be exterminated, but they accept the chance to happen as consequence of the war against the reaper (the same as everyone accepts the chance to die when goes to a war). It's bad, but not as bad as ignoring the free will of every living being in the whole galaxy and force them to become semi-synthethics. 

People??

The fact that you have to made a choice it doesn't mean that you adhere totally to that choice in its morality. Sometimes you have no other way around and you must go for what you think it's the lesser evil.

The fact that Shepard, for example, can choose the red ending to exterminate the Reapers it doesn't necessarily mean that s/he agree with exterminating the synthetics. It is just that s/he probably think it the best solution where there are none labeled "only white" (as it usually happens).

Same goes for an author. The fact that an author can write some choices to be in a certain way it doesn't mean necessarily that these are the things the author "believes" in.

I am sometimes amused by the connections made here.

The fact that BW made clear that Synthesis ending is better than the other two somehow means they believe it is.

And synthesis is not "the lesser evil", looks even worst than take chances in conventional warfare with 100% chances of loosing. Totally evil ending.

Modifié par Alex_SM, 07 avril 2012 - 03:01 .

[Tirigon]

Amioran wrote...

I don't write by pseudonym, I use my real name that I have no intention of divulgating here.

So you publish novels under your real name, but you do not dare to tell us who you are - even though that would be free advertisement?

Yea attention-wh*ring suspicion confirmed.

[hectorkbrn]

Kaidan Fan wrote...

I didn't believe the crap flowing from star brats mouth. And as destroying the reapers has always been my Shepards goal, that's what I did. And since I lived (even though I was part synthetic and the brat said I would die) it's obvious it was lying.   Therefore I believe the Geth and EDI are ok.

This +1000

That kid always refers to the Reapers as "we",  I reject anything he says, there is absolute no freaking reason to believe anything he says. 


There should had been an option to say: "Well F*ck you and your solution"

Then

:charges gun blazing towards destroy ending:


Also as Hackett said during the game: "Dead Reapers wins this."


And if that's not how it is then, "I reject your reality and substitute my own".

Modifié par hectorkbrn, 07 avril 2012 - 03:12 .

[Navasha]

Well, I personally believe the star kid was lying through his teeth and since the 'green' ending is the most invasive and destructive to the galaxy... I would never choose it.

** Spoiler ish ***
Besides, you can watch EDI walk off the ship in the destroy ending... so definitely was lying.

Modifié par Navasha, 07 avril 2012 - 03:02 .

[metawanderer]

Alex_SM wrote...

Amioran wrote...

Alex_SM wrote...
The Geth and Edi don't choose to be exterminated, but they accept the chance to happen as consequence of the war against the reaper (the same as everyone accepts the chance to die when goes to a war). It's bad, but not as bad as ignoring the free will of every living being in the whole galaxy and force them to become semi-synthethics. 

People??

The fact that you have to made a choice it doesn't mean that you adhere totally to that choice in its morality. Sometimes you have no other way around and you must go for what you think it's the lesser evil.

The fact that Shepard, for example, can choose the red ending to exterminate the Reapers it doesn't necessarily mean that s/he agree with exterminating the synthetics. It is just that s/he probably think it the best solution where there are none labeled "only white" (as it usually happens).

Same goes for an author. The fact that an author can write some choices to be in a certain way it doesn't mean necessarily that these are the things the author "believes" in.

I am sometimes amused by the connections made here.

The fact that BW made clear that Synthesis ending is better than the other two somehow means they believe it is.

And synthesis is not "the lesser evil", looks even worst than take chances in conventional warfare with 100% chances of loosing. 

But determining which is a lesser evil is based on your own beliefs. likes, etc.  I believe one thing that was great about the three endings is that everyone has an opinion on which ending confirms to their "lesser evil".  The ending may not be well written but at least it  is better than having a only a pure good or pure evil ending. Though I personally would have liked to have a pure good "happy" ending.   

[Amioran]

Alex_SM wrote...
Using a plot device by the face, and explaining why it wasn't magic in another story a couple of years after, is cheating. Bad writing. 

1) Are you sure what it will happen? Do you know the plans of Bioware and that it will pass 2 years before having something more?
2) Games take time to make, but this is the fault of the medium not of the author him/herself.
3) Again, "space magic" it's a premature reaction. Too many uncertainities yet.

But how can any of the information of the game show that it makes sense for it to turn organics into semi-synthetics, and synthetics into semi-organics? It doesn't make any sense, and that ability is never introduced. 

It can be explained in various ways. Hell, you don't consider "space magic" a guy returning to life just because some "scientific measure" miracously resurrected him and turned to a cyborg without any plausible explaination - because there aren't, apart belief in the story - but you find impossible to explain a thing as that?

Then, I repeat, we don't either know if this "ending" is an ending at all for now. Many things can be. All I say is that for now all this debate it's premature given the informations we have atm.

Modifié par Amioran, 07 avril 2012 - 03:10 .

[Amioran]

Alex_SM wrote...
The fact that BW made clear that Synthesis ending is better than the other two somehow means they believe it is.

Apart that they never stated a thing as that (from where you get that BW made something as that clear is beyond me, seriously) this doesn't mean at all that they "believe" in it. Again, a complete non sequitur.

If I write a book with a serial-killer as protagonist, looking at things from his pow, this doesn't necessarily mean that I "believe" his morality or the things he says/does.

Modifié par Amioran, 07 avril 2012 - 03:13 .

[Biower Pls]

The reapers don't want you to choose the destroy ending. That's good enough for me.

[Navasha]

You know if you replay the game a few times and listen to the conversations... both Anderson and Hackett tell you that the ONLY way to win is to DESTROY the reapers.

[Eudaemonium]

Shinian2 wrote...

Eudaemonium wrote...

My biggest problem with Synthesis, other than the ludicrous way in which it happens, is the way Shepard basically decides to just impose it upon all life in the galaxy. Transhumanism is a noble goal, but I don't really think it should just be imposed. I admit that, taking the endings at face value, it is the best ending.

That and there is nothing to stop pure organic intelligence from evolving in the future, leading to more comflicts

See, this is also one of my biggest problem with this ending. Is *everything* now partly synthetic? Bacteria on planets which evolve? Do they even evolve now in the previous ways, or is the process completely different now? If not, then, like you said, 'pure' organic life could evolve in the future and simply reignite conflict.

My problem with the entire ending makes it seem that the space between organics and synthetics is the root cause of galactic conflict, and the endings are all methods of resolving this gap: either by destruction, control, or synthesis. The problem is that this was not actually a major theme of the game: the majority of the conflicts in the game universe had nothing to do with synthetics at all, but were purely between organics. The only significant organic vs synthetic conflict, the Quarian-Geth issue, was a major subplot but it was still a subplot. Not only that, the game seems to go out of its way in several missions to show you that these are not unbridgeable gaps and the two are, in-fact, closer than either believed. This is how peace is eventually brokered. Organics versus synthetics is only really a major conflict in Mass Effect 1, where the primary enemy type was the geth, and we still believed the Reapers were machines--a falacy which the game continues to throw up despite the revelation in ME2 being that they were not.

Because this is really my biggest issue: the Reapers are not really synthetics. They are cyborgs. We thought they were synthetics until the Big Reveal at the end of ME2. The Reapers are massive organic hive-minds in machine shells, many minds with a single will: each a nation, independent, free of all weakness. Yes, this does make killing a Reaper the equivalent of genocide. Yes, that is uncomfortable. I would assume that was the point if the game actually dwelt on it remotely instead of ignoring it as a moral question. The issue of the conflict between organics and synthetics being the core concern is thematically at odds with the series itself, where the central conflict is between organic civilisations.

[Amioran]

Tirigon wrote...
So you publish novels under your real name, but you do not dare to tell us who you are - even though that would be free advertisement?

Free advertisement in the web is usually tied with a lot of trouble with other unpleasant things, so I prefer to do it when I want to do it with the precautions needed and in the formal channels (I have a page and various means to do this).

Tirigon wrote...
Yea attention-wh*ring suspicion confirmed.

If you want it to be so...
Still you just added insults and didn't enter in the debate (that was a little more important in this thread than my supposed identy and if what I say is true or not) and yet you insist that I crave for attention.

Modifié par Amioran, 07 avril 2012 - 03:20 .

[Wolf]

Amioran wrote...

I don't write by pseudonym, I use my real name that I have no intention of divulgating here.

I've watched that youtube video but it doesn't make any sense at all.

A) The Socratic exercise doesn't require a logic supposition on which to base your debate to work (and this is the primary fault of what is being said there). On the contrary the most profound socratic exercise is based on impossibility or contradiction (being one of the fundamental aspect of the theory that every sentence contains a contradiction in itself).

Even if it was not so it is not said that you have to require a full logic cycle (from beginning to end) when you perform a choice, that would make things easy where they are not. In real life many times this doesn't happen. You cannot know what the consequences will be of your actions, you can just act in conformity with the data you have at the moment, however little it can be.

C) An author can write some choices just with the intent of making them difficult and apparently without exit and have bad consequences in all cases. In this case having a full explanation of what is to happen will render the choice all another thing. Uncertainity it's a powerful way to create momentum during a lapse (for a story to continue).

D) As for plausibility: it can be important in the case we are sure the saga will not continue, but in this case we don't know it yet. Hell, we don't know either if this ending is a true ending or not. So all of this talking about "plot-holes" or "space magic" is supremely premature and can be either counterproductive as I've explained elsewhere.

The choices, and consequently, the series has always based itself on this. Bioware deviated from that on the last minute. The choices are not a socratic excercise in and of themselves, they are based on the concept and that difference is balanced throughout the series. They have always challenged us to use the logic and reason they present to us as "real and true" in the series to solve the problems we are presented, they shifted from that at the last minute. It's not abou the excercise in and of itself, it's about the concept being aplied to the universe of ME, don't deviate the issue please.

This is where the balance I mentioned comes into play. Philosophy doesn't factor much into it. This is entertainment and, to some extent, art. This is not real life, it is a game that allows for player input on various subjects presented. As such a certain level of assurance is necessary depending on the situation, the ending was one such section that required a perfect balanco to exist, something that evidently failed to occur.  There was a need for just enough information available to the players so they could understand how they would change things and enough blank space to provide a sense of mistery and blindness to  what would happen.

Uncertainty was something that has always been present in the series but this refers to the second point, that a perfect balance was needed to achieve the ending they said we would have. What was stated over the course of development (when they fed us information regarding the game) was that you could dictate the fate of entire civilizations, thus deciding the future of the universe, but by giving us choices so vague they ultimately wrote themselves into a corner, and generated mass confusion. Speculation was the goal, and it was acheived. Just not appropriately. We were meant to be given something that provided closure to the current arc of the story and its characters, while also being given a good way of speculating what might have happened. It didn't work out.

Plot holes exist. They are there. Wether you choose to acknowledge them as such is entirely up to you, but make no mistake, you are essentially turning a blind eye to it. In regards to "space magic" the complaints are also valid. The video I showed you reflects on what ME is and isn't. It's not an opinion, they are facts.
ME has always had a ground in science (which is what makes it science-fiction) albeit it stretches itself a bit in some subjects like biotics and what have you. The whole proble is that logic and reality as we know it has always been fundamental to making decisions in this universe. At the end they take that away and replace it with a logic you have had no previous contact with or have opinions on (assumptions and a logic which is not your own game-wise), and does not make sense if you didn't look at it in a specific light.

Basically what I'm getting at is that they give you a situation that presents a problem that , up until that point, was non-existant in the broader scheme of things, and to top thing off, make you act by a logic that is not your own.  

[Tirigon]

Amioran wrote...

Tirigon wrote...
So you publish novels under your real name, but you do not dare to tell us who you are - even though that would be free advertisement?

Free advertisement in the web is usually tied with a lot of trouble with other unpleasant things, so I prefer to do it when I want to do it with the precautions needed and in the formal channels (I have a page and various means to do this).

Tirigon wrote...
Yea attention-wh*ring suspicion confirmed.

If you want it to be so...
Still you just added insults and didn't enter in the debate (that was a little more important in this thread than my supposed identy and if what I say is true or not) and yet you insist that I crave for attention.

I chose not to repsond because I cant take someone like you seriously, and therefore there is no point to adress your points.

[AtlasMickey]

Just saw this thread.

Green ending FTW. Hold the lime!

[crazyrabbits]

Amioran wrote...


3) Again, "space magic" it's a premature reaction. Too many uncertainities yet.

It can be explained in various ways. Hell, you don't consider "space magic" a guy returning to life just because some "scientific measure" miracously resurrected him and turned to a cyborg without any plausible explaination - because there aren't, apart belief in the story - but you find impossible to explain a thing as that?

Then, I repeat, we don't either know if this "ending" is an ending at all for now. Many things can be. All I say is that for now all this debate it's premature given the informations we have atm.

If a singular work doesn't give the viewer/player enough information to understand what is going on/what is at stake, that is objectively bad writing. Trying to pass it off as "oh, we just didn't write it in yet" is a retcon at best and an a**pull at worst.

Likewise, the Lazarus Project was also justly criticized when ME2 came out, as it dealt around a writing caveat that had no use other than resetting the character back to Level 1. The ramifications of Shepard's death and resurrection two years later were never sufficiently dealt with, and the information we get in ME3 is too little, too late.

[Jamie9]

AtlasMickey wrote...

Just saw this thread.

Green ending FTW. Hold the lime!

You 'saw' it, but you didn't read it obviously.

[Aleru]

Imperium Alpha wrote...

Seriously why would you not take Destroy?

-Catalyst doesn't want you to take that option,
-Anderson represent that choice,
-Shepard goal was always to destroy the reapers -at any cost- in some case.
-Shepard can live (It's also the highest required EMS in that case)
-EDI and Shepard survive even though synthetic should be killed.

Thats why im suspicious....
im gping to wait for the clairifation dlc... but just in case, i picked destruction every time i played.

[ZombifiedJake]

The green ending felt the most out of place and really ruins what's good about Mass Effect. I will always avoid it, but understand that some like it. Came across as stupid.

Whenever I got to the "decision" I just took my Shepard down the destroy path since I was both pissed off and confused. I didn't particularly like the implications of it, especially shoving down my throat that organics and synthetics can't co-exist. Then what was the point in proving that it could be done with the Geth and Quarians? And EDI and Joker?

I wanted to flush the reapers down the toilet and shut that avatar up, despite the annoying consequences, and not just so that my Shepard would survive (despite that being a bonus).

[Nathan Redgrave]

Han Shot First wrote...

One thing that strikes me as bizarre is how the Green Ending is supposed to be the best possible ending. This option only opens up when you have a high EMS score, which suggests that Bioware intended it to be the ending with the best outcome.

Considering that the "destroy, but survive" ending requires an even higher one, your logic fails.

[Amioran]

Gaiden96 wrote...
The choices, and consequently, the series has always based itself on this. Bioware deviated from that on the last minute. The choices are not a socratic excercise in and of themselves, they are based on the concept and that difference is balanced throughout the series. They have always challenged us to use the logic and reason they present to us as "real and true" in the series to solve the problems we are presented, they shifted from that at the last minute. It's not abou the excercise in and of itself, it's about the concept being aplied to the universe of ME, don't deviate the issue please.

I'm not deviating anything. I'm replying to the video you presented me and in turn to the things said in it.

The fact that the saga was based on choices where you always did knew in anticipation the outcome I sincerely cannot see. Many times you could take an action just to see it develop in ways that couldn't be anticipated (and sadly even too less). But this is a game, you can always revert back and choose what you like more; this is the real problem here, probably: now you cannot (because there aren't "better" choices). The "inconsistency" is not a "bad" thing per se, and on the contrary their predictability as a medium it is what make generally games so mediocre as a form of art.

Also if it was as you said there's nothing wrong on experimenting something new, even more because (as I continue to repeat) there can be many motivations on why this decision has been taken. This debate can be good in theory but I find the pretence of making it now before knowing for certainity what's happening behind the lines as a thing completely uncalled for and either possibly damaging for the same end user.

Gaiden96 wrote...
This is not real life, it is a game that allows for player input on various subjects presented. As such a certain level of assurance is necessary depending on the situation, the ending was one such section that required a perfect balanco to exist, something that evidently failed to occur.  There was a need for just enough information available to the players so they could understand how they would change things and enough blank space to provide a sense of mistery and blindness to what would happen.

Maybe they wanted to give this sense of uncertainity? Maybe this is what they wanted to arise in the user given what they have in store? Can you be certain that's not so?

What you say can either make sense (not completely because it creates some limitations where there shouldn't be any), but, as I repeat, it's a premature conclusion now.

Gaiden96 wrote...
What was stated over the course of development (when they fed us information regarding the game) was that you could dictate the fate of entire civilizations, thus deciding the future of the universe, but by giving us choices so vague they ultimately wrote themselves into a corner, and generated mass confusion.

Some things are planned in a way in advance but then they can suddenly change for various motives. If you try to explain the change to users they will probably not understand what's happening because they don't have enough information on the background, so it is simply better to go with it.
 

Gaiden96 wrote...
Speculation was the goal, and it was acheived. Just not appropriately. We were meant to be given something that provided closure to the current arc of the story and its characters, while also being given a good way of speculating what might have happened. It didn't work out.

You don't know it yet. You suppose that it didn't work out but with the information you have atm it's just a consideration without background. The motive why for now it's not working for the user it's not a fault of the authors (at last for now) but of the users that expected something different and cannot adapt to the change, but instead enjoying the ride along till the end and see what happens next (as should be the most intelligent thing to do) they want things to be changed without knowing if this is what is really needed or not.

Gaiden96 wrote...
Plot holes exist. They are there. Wether you choose to acknowledge them as such is entirely up to you, but make no mistake, you are essentially turning a blind eye to it.

I never said that there aren't, in fact. I said that you don't know yet if they are intentional or not, and this makes a lot of a difference.

Gaiden96 wrote...
In regards to "space magic" the complaints are also valid. The video I showed you reflects on what ME is and isn't. It's not an opinion, they are facts.

Facts that are based on suppositions that can be completely wrong. You base all your judgment on a thing that's not certain at all and it can be completely different from what you presume and yet you debate about having certainity in the choices you would like to make. It is a bit of a contradiction, don't you think?

Gaiden96 wrote...
At the end they take that away and replace it with a logic you have had no previous contact with or have opinions on (assumptions and a logic which is not your own game-wise), and does not make sense if you didn't look at it in a specific light.

There have been many other similar examples before in all of the course of the games. Why this specific one should be any different I don't really get.

Gaiden96 wrote...
Basically what I'm getting at is that they give you a situation that presents a problem that , up until that point, was non-existant in the broader scheme of things, and to top thing off, make you act by a logic that is not your own.  

And why this is a bad thing per se? Just because you expected something different?

Modifié par Amioran, 07 avril 2012 - 04:00 .

[Amioran]

crazyrabbits wrote...
If a singular work doesn't give the viewer/player enough information to understand what is going on/what is at stake, that is objectively bad writing.

Sorry but no, it isn't.

Many books during a lapse base the momentum in this uncertanity and there are entire genres created appositedly on this.

[OlympusMons423]

Those choices all stunk, but destroy was the only one that felt like I was not screwing over everybody. Combining with the machines made me think of Tali looking at her hands and seeing it starting to happen..tingling up her arms and body..her panic...all those other souls panic.

Whats the point really?