239 réponses à ce sujet

[Sgt Stryker]

arthurhallam wrote...

M.Erik.Sal wrote...

Here's why the central theme, or even a main theme, of ME1 is not synthetics vs organics. For most of the first game, as far you know the Geth are following Saren. An Organic.

We don't know what the Reapers are until Virmire, except that they wiped out the Protheans and the life before it in a cycle going back 50k years. For most of the game the villain is Saren and not Sovereign; who only shows up during the climax (tangentially: this is the last proper place for a twist, not the denouement.) and he uses not only Synthetics but organics as well (cloned Korgans anyone?)

Not only is synthetics not the central theme, it's in fact not even a main one in ME1.

you haven't got a frigging clue what a theme is. 

themes are not determined by plot!

Neither are they determined by an out-of-the-way, optional side-quest. I am of course, referring to the Credit Syphoning AI sidequest from ME1.

[M.Erik.Sal]

arthurhallam wrote...

M.Erik.Sal wrote...

Here's why the central theme, or even a main theme, of ME1 is not synthetics vs organics. For most of the first game, as far you know the Geth are following Saren. An Organic.

We don't know what the Reapers are until Virmire, except that they wiped out the Protheans and the life before it in a cycle going back 50k years. For most of the game the villain is Saren and not Sovereign; who only shows up during the climax (tangentially: this is the last proper place for a twist, not the denouement.) and he uses not only Synthetics but organics as well (cloned Korgans anyone?)

Not only is synthetics not the central theme, it's in fact not even a main one in ME1.

you haven't got a frigging clue what a theme is. 

themes are not determined by plot!

Determined? No. Informed by? Yes.

You can't have a theme in the story that doesn't relate to the plot, because the plot is WHAT HAPPENS. The underlying conflict you experience in ME1 during the main story missions is NOT a binary division between organics and synthetics. You fight both, and the main antagonist for the majority of tehg ame is NOT a synthetic as far as you know, he looks to ahve some 'machine' parts, but this further refutes the idea of synthetics vs organics as a main theme. I don't deny it exists within the game universe; only that it constitutes a main theme.

Edit: Actually, I was wrong. I chose a pithy comment over factual accuracy. Themes ARE determined by plot, because themes are determined by WHAT HAPPENS and plot is what happens.

Plot and themes are not the SAME  THING.

Modifié par M.Erik.Sal, 07 avril 2012 - 07:48 .

[Daedalus1773]

pistolols wrote...

Daedalus1773 wrote...

pistolols wrote...

GlassElephant wrote...

The Catalyst may be telling the truth about the impending genocide of organics at the hands of AI, but what the game actually shows us does not fit with what he's saying. So, it forces us to go on hypotheticals and things outside the actual story we see.

Well wait just a damn minute... are people not realizing that what the catalyst says is MERELY HIS OPINION?  This was not some absolute truth or something the writers were trying to convey to us... it was an AI's opinion and reasoning behind a demented solution.

And Shepard swallowed it with nary a single peep of disagreement.

I didn't get that sense at all.  But regardless.. what the catalyst says is his opinion and his alone.

StarKid asserts his reasoning for wiping out all organic life every 50k years.
Shepard says we'd rather keep our own form.
StarKid ignores him, and says make an RGB choice that will result in your death & offers almost no other information.
Shepard says "I ... I don't know."
Then Shepard kills himself without making any of the points I've already made in this thread (and that you're ignoring ... I know the thread is moving FTL, but I asked you some questions...).

Whether it's just his opinion is not relevant. Shepard believes his opinion as truth, and then I am forced to act on it as thought it is truth.  But my Shepard knows it is not true.

You have some good points in this thread, but if you're not willing to acknowledge solid points made by people who disagree with you, there's no point in this dialogue.

Modifié par Daedalus1773, 07 avril 2012 - 07:45 .

[spyro396]

i didnt like the ending because it was full of plot holes and didnt make any sense. simple as that

[bpzrn]

The fact that they need to explain the ending says it all, speculation is good and all but this is pure confusion and incoherent story telling (ehh hemmm ART). Clarifying this ending is like putting an air freshener near a pile of #$%%#$, it’s bad, they missed the mark and really need to delete the last 5 minutes and tack on 15 minutes from there with an ending that makes some sense.

Bad ending to a great series, lost a lot of customers, I bet.

[Justin2k]

Well there is two sides to this.

There was a lot of foreshadowing of these events in ME3, with the illusive man pretty much saying what the choices are the first time you meet them. In addition the Tali and Legion storylines that have been said.

I have little doubt that these choices may very well have been what Drew would have came up with. However, I think he would have gone about it in a different way which fit in more with the rest of the series.

You can do destroy, control or coexist without bringing in a random child and a magic elevator.

I think the choice to change writers right at the last part of the triology was a baffling and confusing one. In honesty I was more disappointed by a lot of the language used by Shepard than anything else. My femshep would not have nightmares, or she would curse them in the morning. She would not feel bad for a kid in a vent, if he doesn't want to come out, she'd shut the thing behind him.

This was a new writers vision and as such Shepard just wasn't Shepard anymore.

[pistolols]

Sgt Stryker wrote...
Neither are they determined by an out-of-the-way, optional side-quest. I am of course, referring to the Credit Syphoning AI sidequest from ME1.

you think there is any chance mac walters wrote that sidequest for ME1?  lol

Anyway, i am hoping this extended cut DLC includes dialogue option with the catalyst.  And it would be a cool parallel if it gave us the same questions we had for the credit syphoning AI.  i.e. -Creator?  -Location of creator?  Fate of creator?  -Reason for theft  the cycle?  etc.

[Daedalus1773]

pistolols wrote...

Sgt Stryker wrote...
Neither are they determined by an out-of-the-way, optional side-quest. I am of course, referring to the Credit Syphoning AI sidequest from ME1.

you think there is any chance mac walters wrote that sidequest for ME1?  lol

Anyway, i am hoping this extended cut DLC includes dialogue option with the catalyst.  And it would be a cool parallel if it gave us the same questions we had for the credit syphoning AI.  i.e. -Creator?  -Location of creator?  Fate of creator?  -Reason for theft  the cycle?  etc.

I hope there's more dialogue/ending choices as well.

But for now I take their statements to the contrary at face value.

[omphaloskepsis]

pistolols wrote...

GlassElephant wrote...

The Catalyst may be telling the truth about the impending genocide of organics at the hands of AI, but what the game actually shows us does not fit with what he's saying. So, it forces us to go on hypotheticals and things outside the actual story we see.

Well wait just a damn minute... are people not realizing that what the catalyst says is MERELY HIS OPINION?  This was not some absolute truth or something the writers were trying to convey to us... it was an AI's opinion and reasoning behind a demented solution.

There are 2 basic options for viewing the starchild.  The first is that he's a (nearly) omniscient AI god.  The second is that it's an idiotic, insane, AI god.  I believe the way that Bioware presented, and Mac and Casey probably viewed, the starchild was in the first way.  But it doesn't really matter for the endnig.

Either way, the end threw out agency and removed shepard as the primary player and replaced him with a reaper god.  Either way, the starchild's logic is laughably bad, yet determines the solution and ending of the game.  In some ways, it's actually worse if the starchild is a mad idiot, because it sets the conditions for the end.  The end is replacing one of the reaper god's solutions with another one of the reaper god's solutions. 

[pistolols]

Daedalus1773 wrote...

Whether it's just his opinion is not relevant. Shepard believes his opinion as truth, and then I am forced to act on it as thought it is truth.  But my Shepard knows it is not true.

Huh?? Shepard is acting on 3 new solutions the crucible created which will end the reaper cycle.  i didn't get that sense that he was "doing w/e the catalyst says"... he was doing what the crucible was built for, the catalyst was merely relaying the information of how it will work.

[Sgt Stryker]

For one thing, I'd love to ask it why the hell it needed Sovereign in ME1. And why Sovereign told me all Reapers were "independent, free of all weakness", even though apparently that's not true anymore.

[Teacher50]

I hear the arguments but I guess I'm the stupid one...

I took the central theme to be one of wo/man kind (humans) somehow beating all odds to defeat the foe. Too simple I guess. It did seem to me that everything else revolves around this.

If everyone else has a different idea of what the central theme is then it can only lead to one conclusion, the theme was never really developed fully. I don't think this was the case. The first two of the series appeared to me to end upon the theme as stated. In ME3, much time was consumed in tieing up relationships and exploring emotions. Frankly, I thought it was very well done, but it creats a problem. Intricate stories require an intricate ending. Perhaps this was overwhelming but I don't know.

The introduction of a god creature at the end to solve it all in it's own manner is a poor writing tool. It would have been better to narrow the conclusion and take its que from those before it but it was not my call. Perhaps it wasn't Bioware's either. We may never know.

[Taboo]

If you think the only major theme is Mass Effect is Synthetics v. Organics you need to go find a rock and go live under it.

Dear lord. There are so many other things at work it boggles my mind. People aren't angry that this theme was addressed they are angry because it was the ONLY theme addressed.

[Slash1667]

Averdi wrote...

Up until the end of ME3, the organic vs synthetic relationship has been a subplot to the main story, at best. In that, it's like the issues of morality surrounding the genophage or questions of racial superiority/priority via Ashley and/or Cerberus.

The catalyst could have as easily said that the reapers do their thing because advanced organics always manipulate less advanced organics (e.g. salaraians and krogan), and thus should be removed to allow 'natural' organic evolution. That would have had as much support as the organic vs synthetic rationale, though without the additional irony of the reapers themselves being synthetic.....

Actually, following the Catalyst's logic, the Reapers aren't synthetic. They are a hybrid. Using organic matter to create a synthetic appearing creation.

[Chaoswind]

That is an actual quote of a Manga I read.

The last thing you take of a game is the last few minutes, and the fact that there is no boss battle of any kind... heck there is NOTHING epic about the last 20 minutes of the game, that is one of the reasons we hate it, we could eat all the plot holes if we had an epic fight with Harby or heck why not make the damn vent kid be the last boss (after Shep dopes him/herself in medigel), make it so the vent kid transforms into all the "important" characters that have been killed in the game so far ("Vent Kid", Mordin, Legion, Kaidan/Ash, "Jenkins", to name a few) and let us fight with the weapons Anderson Had laying around the battlefield (All Basic weapons+you powers) and the time limit is the amount of time the reapers take to blow the Crucible).

Why not give us that? would have been epic

[The Charnel Expanse]

Daedalus1773 wrote...

pistolols wrote...

Sgt Stryker wrote...
Neither are they determined by an out-of-the-way, optional side-quest. I am of course, referring to the Credit Syphoning AI sidequest from ME1.

you think there is any chance mac walters wrote that sidequest for ME1?  lol

Anyway, i am hoping this extended cut DLC includes dialogue option with the catalyst.  And it would be a cool parallel if it gave us the same questions we had for the credit syphoning AI.  i.e. -Creator?  -Location of creator?  Fate of creator?  -Reason for theft  the cycle?  etc.

I hope there's more dialogue/ending choices as well.

But for now I take their statements to the contrary at face value.

I would think that changing the Catalyst's dialogue would fit under the umbrella of "clarification" which is why I have SOME [not a lot, mind you, but some] hope for the DLC.

[uke2se]

pistolols wrote...

Sgt Stryker wrote...
Neither are they determined by an out-of-the-way, optional side-quest. I am of course, referring to the Credit Syphoning AI sidequest from ME1.

you think there is any chance mac walters wrote that sidequest for ME1?  lol

Anyway, i am hoping this extended cut DLC includes dialogue option with the catalyst.  And it would be a cool parallel if it gave us the same questions we had for the credit syphoning AI.  i.e. -Creator?  -Location of creator?  Fate of creator?  -Reason for theft  the cycle?  etc.

Dialogue options should include the following:

- "Who are you really and why do you look like that kid I saw on Earth? Are you able to read my mind? How?"

- "I reject your premise and present the Quarrian-Geth peace as evidence for the fact that synthetics and organics can live together, and the only problem is the Reapers, and - if you are really controlling them (how does that work again?) - you."

- "I will not chose any of the options presented to me for the single reason that it would spell doom for tthe galaxy now and in the future. Billions of people would die, and I will not have all that blood on my hands. Instead, we are going to sit here and watch as our fleets destroy each other. Maybe your Reapers will win, maybe my fleets will, but we sure are going to take lots of you bastards with us either way."

Modifié par uke2se, 07 avril 2012 - 07:55 .

[XqctaX]

you should all watch the 40 min video in the bottom link in my sig.
those that didnt liek the ending are ones that thought things thrue.

that that di like the endings dont mind inconcistency's
thats just the truth of the matter and no rethoric will change it.

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

The Charnel Expanse wrote...

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

What you just said doesnt actaully have anything to do with unity for the sake of survival.  ME1 is about biggotry and lack of understanding, but unity is not the same thing as acceptance.  ME1 is about chosing your path and making tough decisions.  Killing the raccni queen doesnt have anything to do with unity, it has to do with fear.  The suicide mission was about loyalty and bringing people together because it was the only way we were going to stop the reapers.  In ME1 attempts to work together fail so you have to go out on your own, other themes take over in ME1 because unity is not a major theme of the first game. 

In FFX you assembled a ragtag group of heroes, and your group is actually running in opposition to the themes of unity established in the game.  Joining the army to work together and defeat Sin results in a bloodbath because working together will not defeat this monster.  Following seymore and unifying under the governments wont win against Sin it will just perpetuate the cycle.  The entire point of that game wasnt unity, it was self sacrifice.  (First through yuna then through tidus)  Unless something is the underlying theme that the story hinges on then it is not the major theme of the story.  Success through Unity was not the theme of FFX and it was not the theme of ME1.

Bringing FFX into the argument pretty much buries you.

Dismissing a game just cause you dont like it is pigheaded.  I'm talking about how and why stories are built, not which stories you like.  FFX was simply the best example I could come up with that disproved your stance while still talking about a game.

Modifié par Doctor_Jackstraw, 07 avril 2012 - 07:55 .

[Daedalus1773]

pistolols wrote...

Daedalus1773 wrote...

Whether it's just his opinion is not relevant. Shepard believes his opinion as truth, and then I am forced to act on it as thought it is truth.  But my Shepard knows it is not true.

Huh?? Shepard is acting on 3 new solutions the crucible created which will end the reaper cycle.  i didn't get that sense that he was "doing w/e the catalyst says"... he was doing what the crucible was built for, the catalyst was merely relaying the information of how it will work.

I don't think you're actually reading anything I'm saying in this thread.

Modifié par Daedalus1773, 07 avril 2012 - 07:55 .

[M.Erik.Sal]

Teacher50 wrote...

I hear the arguments but I guess I'm the stupid one...

I took the central theme to be one of wo/man kind (humans) somehow beating all odds to defeat the foe. Too simple I guess. It did seem to me that everything else revolves around this.

If everyone else has a different idea of what the central theme is then it can only lead to one conclusion, the theme was never really developed fully. I don't think this was the case. The first two of the series appeared to me to end upon the theme as stated. In ME3, much time was consumed in tieing up relationships and exploring emotions. Frankly, I thought it was very well done, but it creats a problem. Intricate stories require an intricate ending. Perhaps this was overwhelming but I don't know.

The introduction of a god creature at the end to solve it all in it's own manner is a poor writing tool. It would have been better to narrow the conclusion and take its que from those before it but it was not my call. Perhaps it wasn't Bioware's either. We may never know.

I have to ask, is that your blog in your signature?

Modifié par M.Erik.Sal, 07 avril 2012 - 07:56 .

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

M.Erik.Sal wrote...

Determined? No. Informed by? Yes.

You can't have a theme in the story that doesn't relate to the plot, because the plot is WHAT HAPPENS. The underlying conflict you experience in ME1 during the main story missions is NOT a binary division between organics and synthetics. You fight both, and the main antagonist for the majority of tehg ame is NOT a synthetic as far as you know, he looks to ahve some 'machine' parts, but this further refutes the idea of synthetics vs organics as a main theme. I don't deny it exists within the game universe; only that it constitutes a main theme.

Edit: Actually, I was wrong. I chose a pithy comment over factual accuracy. Themes ARE determined by plot, because themes are determined by WHAT HAPPENS and plot is what happens.

Plot and themes are not the SAME  THING.

Not necessarily.  You're making the mistake of taking something both ways.  Like this:  A woman is a human, but a human is not a woman.  You're saying that humans must be women because women must be humans.  While your point is true in some circumstances it is not true in all.

[DevilBeast]

I know most see the two themes: unification of different civilizations to stand against a common enemy and the synthetics vs. organics conflict.
But I think there may be another theme: Being a slave to others will and the fight to break free from it.
F.ex: In the beginning we are told by Sovereign that all organic evolution is "directed" by the reapers along paths they want us to follow by allowing us to use their technology (the mass relays, the Citadel etc. etc.). So, basically the organic civilizations in ME are not much different than the cattle raised by a farmer. Then in ME3 we discover that the reapers aren´t actually the farmers but only the tool he uses (seems the name fits them even better after that revelation;)). They are just as much "caught" up in the cycle and evolution imposed by others as the organic species are.

Now, this theme isn´t only applied to the the reaper conflict it is seen in other situations throughout the series.
F.ex: the krogan being uplifted by the salarians, the drell becoming (willingly though) servants of the hanar, the hanar themselves being product of the protheans actions just like the asari whose culture and society was basically created by them and not to mention all the other species which the protheans subjugated during their empire.

So, yes the major theme is the conflict between the creators and the created (synthetics vs. organics), but the fight to break free from a cycle where everyone is a slave to someone elses will is present too. And the mass relays being destroyed in the end symbolizes the destruction of this cycle.

Anyway, this is just my opinon:)

[kalasaurus]

pistolols wrote...

GlassElephant wrote...

The Catalyst may be telling the truth about the impending genocide of organics at the hands of AI, but what the game actually shows us does not fit with what he's saying. So, it forces us to go on hypotheticals and things outside the actual story we see.

Well wait just a damn minute... are people not realizing that what the catalyst says is MERELY HIS OPINION?  This was not some absolute truth or something the writers were trying to convey to us... it was an AI's opinion and reasoning behind a demented solution.

I think he's lying too, but only because the past events in the game that we actually see completely contradicts what he's stating as fact.  We aren't given the option to point out that his reasoning is flawed because the synthetics we've seen attacking organics were acting out in self defense or manipulated by the Reapers.

What I said earleir in my post is that the game portrays synthetics as misunderstood victims.  We can only decide on hypotheticals on what MIGHT happen, rather than make our decision based on what the game actually shows us.  So, he might be telling the truth because he's presented as an all-knowing entity who's been around for countless cycles, but what we see through Shepard in his/her short lifespan does not go along with what he's saying.

[The Charnel Expanse]

Chaoswind wrote...



That is an actual quote of a Manga I read.

The last thing you take of a game is the last few minutes, and the fact that there is no boss battle of any kind... heck there is NOTHING epic about the last 20 minutes of the game, that is one of the reasons we hate it, we could eat all the plot holes if we had an epic fight with Harby or heck why not make the damn vent kid be the last boss (after Shep dopes him/herself in medigel), make it so the vent kid transforms into all the "important" characters that have been killed in the game so far ("Vent Kid", Mordin, Legion, Kaidan/Ash, "Jenkins", to name a few) and let us fight with the weapons Anderson Had laying around the battlefield (All Basic weapons+you powers) and the time limit is the amount of time the reapers take to blow the Crucible).

Why not give us that? would have been epic

I disagree with the notion that a boss battle is necessary. It would undercut the idea that Reapers can't be defeated conventionally [something that we've been browbeaten with for the entire game], and anything short of a one-on-one battle with Harbinger would still feel like a subpar climax. I think the confrontation with TIM served very well as a final battle, because it really did bring a fitting end to the actual conflict at the heart of the story. If that was the last scene in the series, I'm sure a lot fewer people would be angry with the ending.