204 réponses à ce sujet

[Isichar]

Ethalin wrote...

Lol. How can the ending be properly foreshadowed when the writer for ME1 and ME2 wrote the Dark Matter ending and the ending we got wasn't even created yet?

Well it depends what themes you thought were most prominent well playing through the series, someone who placed more importance on their team may not find the ending reflected that at all, well someone who believes the fight for organic survival was perfectly reflected in the end. Just a difference in perception of what was really important.

[ChildOfEden]

williamson52290 wrote...

ChildOfEden wrote...

Isichar wrote...

I think key themes were largely foreshadowed, the act of playing god, the loss of the relays, shepards sacrifice. That been said theres alot of key themes in the mass effect series that are ultimately not focused on such as having no real dialogue control and the dark energy issue.
The catalyst was in no way shape or form really foreshadowed to me, infact i feel i was led to believe that the reapers were the pinnacle of evolution and not simply a tool to be controlled.

The loss of the mass relays didn't really make sense to me, of course I can see why they would include it.
It was an arguement between the Geth and the Heretics that caught me on though. The Geth wanted to build their own path to a technological marvel, while the Heretics were willing to be supplied it. The Mass Relays were a pinnacle, an examplar of the Reapers and Heretics intentions: being supplied the technology.
However, that does not excuse bad writing on their part, the Normandy being caught up in the explosion threw me off.

I saw the relay networks destruction as necessary. While of course the practical consequence of the networks destruction is limited interstellar travel the symbolism behind it is that it frees the galaxy from the cycle of extinction brought upon by relying on the relays and the technology of the reapers and allows the civilizations of the galaxy to advance and evolve on their own rather than follow a predetermined path as before.

I can definitely see your point, but if the controlled explosions were not harmful in regards to the subjects you chosen, then it just leaves the questions of why Joker and the Normandy left Earth.

[Zix13]

So an irrelevant sidequest forshadowed the ending? I think Sovereign's dialogue was a little bit more important than suspicious gambling machine. I don't think the ending was forshadowed at all.

The ending I was expecting would be closely tied to the "Victory through sacrifice" theme which was a more plot-central theme to the series. Kaiden/Ashley staying behind, Saren's suicide if you talked him into it, Mordin, Legion, Thane, Miranda, Victus etc. etc. etc. Synthetics vs. Organics is a theme mostly wrapped in the Geth/Quarian plotline. It wasn't really any more important than the morality of the genophage.

[wheelierdan]

this is no different than the indoctrination theory, you are going through the story trying to make connections that never existed.

the original plot was dark energy,they scrapped that, you cant change that fact. youre cherry picking facts to make it make sense.

[ChildOfEden]

Sad Dragon wrote...

The way I see it is that the quest does not foreshadow anything about the ending -- other then echo the flawed logic of it. What it did do, however, was building up the fear of AI that is present in the world of Mass Effect. And remember this was done in the same game where the Geth was the prime aggressors.
It should also be stated that it was but one AI that stated its opinion.

When Mass Effect 2 came out we are then confronted with EDI -- through the lens of Mass Effect 1 and the setting that was built up there. Her actions, as well as Legions gave another viewpoint to the setting. Maybe AI's can get along with Organics.

In Mass Effect 3 this story culminates with the Geth on Rannoch where you get to make the decision of they are worth saving and if you believe there can be peace.

By the time you get to the citadel this plot has already been resolved -- which dampens the effect of the ending. So I would say that the quest is more a part of the Quarian-Geth subplot than it is a part of the main plot.

-TSD

But this is important to the plot in general, the Geth are to be assumed to have been destroyed if you chose to destroy all synthetics. Why did they have to include the now peaceful Geth? Why not have this controlled explosion kill only the bad synthetics ala Reapers?

[williamson52290]

ChildOfEden wrote...

williamson52290 wrote...

ChildOfEden wrote...

Isichar wrote...

I think key themes were largely foreshadowed, the act of playing god, the loss of the relays, shepards sacrifice. That been said theres alot of key themes in the mass effect series that are ultimately not focused on such as having no real dialogue control and the dark energy issue.
The catalyst was in no way shape or form really foreshadowed to me, infact i feel i was led to believe that the reapers were the pinnacle of evolution and not simply a tool to be controlled.

The loss of the mass relays didn't really make sense to me, of course I can see why they would include it.
It was an arguement between the Geth and the Heretics that caught me on though. The Geth wanted to build their own path to a technological marvel, while the Heretics were willing to be supplied it. The Mass Relays were a pinnacle, an examplar of the Reapers and Heretics intentions: being supplied the technology.
However, that does not excuse bad writing on their part, the Normandy being caught up in the explosion threw me off.

I saw the relay networks destruction as necessary. While of course the practical consequence of the networks destruction is limited interstellar travel the symbolism behind it is that it frees the galaxy from the cycle of extinction brought upon by relying on the relays and the technology of the reapers and allows the civilizations of the galaxy to advance and evolve on their own rather than follow a predetermined path as before.

I can definitely see your point, but if the controlled explosions were not harmful in regards to the subjects you chosen, then it just leaves the questions of why Joker and the Normandy left Earth.

That question still has me scratching my head lol

[ChildOfEden]

wheelierdan wrote...

this is no different than the indoctrination theory, you are going through the story trying to make connections that never existed.

the original plot was dark energy,they scrapped that, you cant change that fact. youre cherry picking facts to make it make sense.

Not to make sense, to make a connection. That is the difference sir.

[Madecologist]

Well Javik does forshadow that theme a lot, it is easy to brush it aside as Javik being Javik... but he does bring it up.

But yeah the problem is more with the execuation of the theme. What it really boils down to is the core conflict of the game changes right at the end. I am not talking about just the theme being brought up poorly, literally the core conflict shifts to match to the introduced theme with no gradual shift of the core conflict.

Simply put, perhaps the theme was forshadowed, but the theme itself was never a core conflict nor was there any indication the core conflict would shift to it. When the theme itself would act as a conflict it was always very side questy and isolated. Also, by ME3 depending on your choices you seem to be overcoming the theme as well.

Even the Geth in ME1, they were more tied to the "Stop the Reapers" and "Stop Saren" than "Us versus them". Even in ME1 you had subtle clues the Geth were more than meets the eyes, which quickly gets expanded upon in ME2 (throw in an EDI to much up the waters too). As noted before you can even challenge the theme in ME3.

Short version, I agree it is not that the theme was not present but was executed poorly at the end as it became the final core conflict. This is because core conflict was somewhat constant in each game but then shifted suddenly at the end of the third game.

[Billabong2011]

ChildOfEden wrote...

Billabong2011 wrote...

I appreciate and respect your opinion, OP.
It's not that the organic-synthetic conflict wasn't A theme of the trilogy, but it was not the CENTRAL theme of the trilogy, which was the value of self-actualized destiny (opposing the inevitable threat with little chance of survival as opposed to ceding to the cycle that repeats itself every 50,000 years). Throughout the game, this is what defines one as 'human' or 'alive' or, arguably, as having a 'soul' - no matter organic OR synthetic (and I quote, LEGION, A SYNTHETIC: "An interesting choice, Shepard-Commander. Your species was offered everything the geth aspire to. True unity, understanding, transcendence. You rejected it. You even refused to use the Old Machines' gifts to achieve it on your species' own terms. You are more like us than we thought.") 
This was the most important theme to resolve at the game's end - if only one theme was to be the focus of the conclusion, this was it - and was, instead, slaughtered seamlessly.

Why else do you think 'choice' - whether it be upon Shepard's shoulders or a mechanic of the game itself - was the most defining factor of the series? It wasn't just for show.

While I agree the conflict of organics and synthetics was foreshadowed and established in the first game, I do not agree that it was the issue requiring the most resolution. Quite frankly, the player's choice at the close of the Quarian-Geth conflict was the defining moment of that conflict for the series (again, notice how it is the player's CHOICE). That was its resolution. To be applied unjustifiably to the conclusion in the 'hopes' that it would somehow translate to being the heart of the Mass Effect trilogy was ill-conceived and just plain stupid.

**NOTE: I am not an advocate of 'there must be 16 endings!' movement. But the climax of the series needed to reflect what 99% of the rest of the series established as the definition of true sentience - self-actualization.

I can see your point, but then if this is a running theme, not the theme, wouldn't it be then assumed this would carry over to the ending? The relevancy is outstandingly clear and objective, however, the implementation of you dying in the end no matter what with getting the same exact cinematics is the question at hand. In actuality I wouldn't have minded just ONE ending. But just as long that ending, for example destroy all synthetics, showed exactly how it affected the galaxy after that "choice."

Not that it wouldn't be carried over to the ending, but I think my point is more of the fact that in its being carried over, it entirely dismisses the central theme itself. So instead of complementing the game's core idea, it not only substitutes for it, but eradicates it for the rest of the trilogy.

If, in some way, they had managed to implement the organic-synthetic conflict in such a way as to coexist with this idea of choice, it would have been a hell of a lot more justified and narratively cohesive.

But, just to further augment my point, the series is called Mass Effect, an homage to the effect of the Mass Relays and their impact on intergalactic existence. They were created as a means of controlling us - a tool to inhibit organics' ability to forge their own fate. Why not, then, would this issue of predestined existence and self-actualized transcendence be the entire crux of the Mass Effect universe? I respect everyone's interpretations, but to me, there really is no evidence that can refute the fact that this is, and always has been, what defines and motivates the trilogy.

[ChildOfEden]

Zix13 wrote...

So an irrelevant sidequest forshadowed the ending? I think Sovereign's dialogue was a little bit more important than suspicious gambling machine. I don't think the ending was forshadowed at all.

The ending I was expecting would be closely tied to the "Victory through sacrifice" theme which was a more plot-central theme to the series. Kaiden/Ashley staying behind, Saren's suicide if you talked him into it, Mordin, Legion, Thane, Miranda, Victus etc. etc. etc. Synthetics vs. Organics is a theme mostly wrapped in the Geth/Quarian plotline. It wasn't really any more important than the morality of the genophage.

I hardly see how side quests are irrelevant. If anything they back the story's background considerably.

[ChildOfEden]

Billabong2011 wrote...

ChildOfEden wrote...

Billabong2011 wrote...

I appreciate and respect your opinion, OP.
It's not that the organic-synthetic conflict wasn't A theme of the trilogy, but it was not the CENTRAL theme of the trilogy, which was the value of self-actualized destiny (opposing the inevitable threat with little chance of survival as opposed to ceding to the cycle that repeats itself every 50,000 years). Throughout the game, this is what defines one as 'human' or 'alive' or, arguably, as having a 'soul' - no matter organic OR synthetic (and I quote, LEGION, A SYNTHETIC: "An interesting choice, Shepard-Commander. Your species was offered everything the geth aspire to. True unity, understanding, transcendence. You rejected it. You even refused to use the Old Machines' gifts to achieve it on your species' own terms. You are more like us than we thought.") 
This was the most important theme to resolve at the game's end - if only one theme was to be the focus of the conclusion, this was it - and was, instead, slaughtered seamlessly.

Why else do you think 'choice' - whether it be upon Shepard's shoulders or a mechanic of the game itself - was the most defining factor of the series? It wasn't just for show.

While I agree the conflict of organics and synthetics was foreshadowed and established in the first game, I do not agree that it was the issue requiring the most resolution. Quite frankly, the player's choice at the close of the Quarian-Geth conflict was the defining moment of that conflict for the series (again, notice how it is the player's CHOICE). That was its resolution. To be applied unjustifiably to the conclusion in the 'hopes' that it would somehow translate to being the heart of the Mass Effect trilogy was ill-conceived and just plain stupid.

**NOTE: I am not an advocate of 'there must be 16 endings!' movement. But the climax of the series needed to reflect what 99% of the rest of the series established as the definition of true sentience - self-actualization.

I can see your point, but then if this is a running theme, not the theme, wouldn't it be then assumed this would carry over to the ending? The relevancy is outstandingly clear and objective, however, the implementation of you dying in the end no matter what with getting the same exact cinematics is the question at hand. In actuality I wouldn't have minded just ONE ending. But just as long that ending, for example destroy all synthetics, showed exactly how it affected the galaxy after that "choice."

Not that it wouldn't be carried over to the ending, but I think my point is more of the fact that in its being carried over, it entirely dismisses the central theme itself. So instead of complementing the game's core idea, it not only substitutes for it, but eradicates it for the rest of the trilogy.

If, in some way, they had managed to implement the organic-synthetic conflict in such a way as to coexist with this idea of choice, it would have been a hell of a lot more justified and narratively cohesive.

But, just to further augment my point, the series is called Mass Effect, an homage to the effect of the Mass Relays and their impact on intergalactic existence. They were created as a means of controlling us - a tool to inhibit organics' ability to forge their own fate. Why not, then, would this issue of predestined existence and self-actualized transcendence be the entire crux of the Mass Effect universe? I respect everyone's interpretations, but to me, there really is no evidence that can refute the fact that this is, and always has been, what defines and motivates the trilogy.

Again I see your point and I respect it.
If what your statements ring true my conclusion would be that internalised interpretations are all true. However, this is not a thread about the topic of what intepretation of the ending was true. It's whether or not the justification for the endings were made, but sadly not delivered.

[Stygian1]

Uh, how could they have foreshadowed when the majority of the series was based around an entirely different plot-line, ending, and theme?...

Also, the theme would be much more presentable had they not gone so far out of their way to act like the Geth and Quarians could coexist--and had the EDI/Joker relationship. They systematically destroyed their apparently "central" theme throughout the entirety of the third game. In fact, the game in which they actually presented the "synthetics vs organics" theme, was the game they went against that theme the most.

BioWare can't write plots. Seems pretty obvious.

[Sad Dragon]

ChildOfEden wrote...

But this is important to the plot in general, the Geth are to be assumed to have been destroyed if you chose to destroy all synthetics. Why did they have to include the now peaceful Geth? Why not have this controlled explosion kill only the bad synthetics ala Reapers?

I'm just guessing here but: Because they wanted the ending to be about Synthetics vs Organics and forgot that they has already tied up that plot a few hours ealier. Or that the Organics vs Synthetics ending was a darling -- which would explain why they threw in the Geth in there as they wanted it to be Synthetics vs Organics no Some Syntheics vs Organics.

Still, Im just guessing.

-TSD

[Lmaoboat]

Yes, organics vs synthetics was a recurring theme, but it was a secondary theme that kind of ran parallel to the main theme. Changing it to the primary theme is part of why the ending was so dissonant. And even if you want to say that peace between the Geth and the Quarians will not last, you've still set up a story that's thematically conflicting with the ending, and turns Legion and the Geth into a big red herring.

[xsdob]

I agree, bioware pretty much screwed the presentation of the ending. It's as if someone read the basic bullet outline about what they wanted to happen, designed literally, and just left it as is.

Presentation and execution are often times the most important part in any medium or product. The content is actually almost a secondary concern compared to showing it occurring in an engaging an captivating way.

Hopefully, the fleshed out version of the game will be able to add much more to the lackluster ending, won't know until it comes out but fingers crossed.

[ChildOfEden]

Madecologist wrote...

Well Javik does forshadow that theme a lot, it is easy to brush it aside as Javik being Javik... but he does bring it up.

But yeah the problem is more with the execuation of the theme. What it really boils down to is the core conflict of the game changes right at the end. I am not talking about just the theme being brought up poorly, literally the core conflict shifts to match to the introduced theme with no gradual shift of the core conflict.

Simply put, perhaps the theme was forshadowed, but the theme itself was never a core conflict nor was there any indication the core conflict would shift to it. When the theme itself would act as a conflict it was always very side questy and isolated. Also, by ME3 depending on your choices you seem to be overcoming the theme as well.

Even the Geth in ME1, they were more tied to the "Stop the Reapers" and "Stop Saren" than "Us versus them". Even in ME1 you had subtle clues the Geth were more than meets the eyes, which quickly gets expanded upon in ME2 (throw in an EDI to much up the waters too). As noted before you can even challenge the theme in ME3.

Short version, I agree it is not that the theme was not present but was executed poorly at the end as it became the final core conflict. This is because core conflict was somewhat constant in each game but then shifted suddenly at the end of the third game.

Exactly.
And the omittion of several of your choices were hard to ingest.

[Isichar]

One theme that ultimately didnt feel reflected in 3's ending that really REALLY surprised me that i found to be one of the strongest in 1 and 2 was how the humans choose to interact with the other races. Both ending choices in 1 and 2 kind of revolve around whether you want to destroy the reapers well securing human dominance or whether you united the races with humans and lead them as one.

Its a theme that is shown throughout much of 3 too but ultimately you need all the races help and your final choice does not really show any strong favoring/disfavoring of humanitys dominance as a whole, moreso the act of playing god in terms of organics/synthetics (maybe you can use control to use the reapers for humanitys benefit, but this does not mean the control theme is exclusive to human dominance)

Modifié par Isichar, 07 avril 2012 - 09:42 .

[Zix13]

ChildOfEden wrote...

Zix13 wrote...

So an irrelevant sidequest forshadowed the ending? I think Sovereign's dialogue was a little bit more important than suspicious gambling machine. I don't think the ending was forshadowed at all.

The ending I was expecting would be closely tied to the "Victory through sacrifice" theme which was a more plot-central theme to the series. Kaiden/Ashley staying behind, Saren's suicide if you talked him into it, Mordin, Legion, Thane, Miranda, Victus etc. etc. etc. Synthetics vs. Organics is a theme mostly wrapped in the Geth/Quarian plotline. It wasn't really any more important than the morality of the genophage.

I hardly see how side quests are irrelevant. If anything they back the story's background considerably.

It's as inconcequential as sidequests get in that game. You find it by walking around in casino. I doubt they were trying to forshadow anything there.
Regardless, it's an AI. It thinks that such conflict is inevitable. The geth think otherwise. Geth are more important than gambling machine AI. If they were trying to portray this theme that way, the geth wouldn't be all "We're going to chill over here so we don't have any conflict with organics."

[ChildOfEden]

Lmaoboat wrote...

Yes, organics vs synthetics was a recurring theme, but it was a secondary theme that kind of ran parallel to the main theme. Changing it to the primary theme is part of why the ending was so dissonant. And even if you want to say that peace between the Geth and the Quarians will not last, you've still set up a story that's thematically conflicting with the ending, and turns Legion and the Geth into a big red herring.

I'd believe you, no seriously I would, but please I'd believe altogether if you can tell me what the main theme was.
And just so you know, it wasn't a matter the if theme[s] used were correct but that if BioWare was correct in using the foreshadowed theme.

Modifié par ChildOfEden, 07 avril 2012 - 09:44 .

[Isichar]

ChildOfEden wrote...

Lmaoboat wrote...

Yes, organics vs synthetics was a recurring theme, but it was a secondary theme that kind of ran parallel to the main theme. Changing it to the primary theme is part of why the ending was so dissonant. And even if you want to say that peace between the Geth and the Quarians will not last, you've still set up a story that's thematically conflicting with the ending, and turns Legion and the Geth into a big red herring.

I'd believe you, no seriously I would, but please I'd believe altogether if you can tell me what the main theme was.
And just so you no, it wasn't a matter the theme used were correct but that BioWare was correct in using the foreshadowed theme.

Read my post above yours, that to me was the main theme of 1 and 2, or so i thought.

[ChildOfEden]

Zix13 wrote...

ChildOfEden wrote...

Zix13 wrote...

So an irrelevant sidequest forshadowed the ending? I think Sovereign's dialogue was a little bit more important than suspicious gambling machine. I don't think the ending was forshadowed at all.

The ending I was expecting would be closely tied to the "Victory through sacrifice" theme which was a more plot-central theme to the series. Kaiden/Ashley staying behind, Saren's suicide if you talked him into it, Mordin, Legion, Thane, Miranda, Victus etc. etc. etc. Synthetics vs. Organics is a theme mostly wrapped in the Geth/Quarian plotline. It wasn't really any more important than the morality of the genophage.

I hardly see how side quests are irrelevant. If anything they back the story's background considerably.

It's as inconcequential as sidequests get in that game. You find it by walking around in casino. I doubt they were trying to forshadow anything there.
Regardless, it's an AI. It thinks that such conflict is inevitable. The geth think otherwise. Geth are more important than gambling machine AI. If they were trying to portray this theme that way, the geth wouldn't be all "We're going to chill over here so we don't have any conflict with organics."

But they have... The Geth were not seen out of the Viel in 300 years. The heretics were the ones who attacked.
And I guess that is the point, conflict is almost always inevitable between organics and machines. Howver it was the deliver, the execution of the ending that was wrong with the game and should be changed if anything.

Modifié par ChildOfEden, 07 avril 2012 - 09:47 .

[Devils-DIVISION]

Agreed OP

[Zix13]

ChildOfEden wrote...

Zix13 wrote...

ChildOfEden wrote...

Zix13 wrote...

So an irrelevant sidequest forshadowed the ending? I think Sovereign's dialogue was a little bit more important than suspicious gambling machine. I don't think the ending was forshadowed at all.

The ending I was expecting would be closely tied to the "Victory through sacrifice" theme which was a more plot-central theme to the series. Kaiden/Ashley staying behind, Saren's suicide if you talked him into it, Mordin, Legion, Thane, Miranda, Victus etc. etc. etc. Synthetics vs. Organics is a theme mostly wrapped in the Geth/Quarian plotline. It wasn't really any more important than the morality of the genophage.

I hardly see how side quests are irrelevant. If anything they back the story's background considerably.

It's as inconcequential as sidequests get in that game. You find it by walking around in casino. I doubt they were trying to forshadow anything there.
Regardless, it's an AI. It thinks that such conflict is inevitable. The geth think otherwise. Geth are more important than gambling machine AI. If they were trying to portray this theme that way, the geth wouldn't be all "We're going to chill over here so we don't have any conflict with organics."

But they have... The Geth were not seen out of the Viel in 300 years. The heretics were the ones who attacked.

Read my post again. Please. Because that's exactly what I said. The Geth avoid conflict. 

Modifié par Zix13, 07 avril 2012 - 09:48 .

[Sad Dragon]

I'll take a stab at trying to pin down the theme of Mass Effect: Survival or simply Defeat the Reapers.

Survival could be argued more if we had some moral choices about how far we would go to ensure out surival against the reapers. But in the end it all boils down to Defeating the Reapers.

[Nauks]

My 2 cents.

I would say yeah the Dark Energy plot was much more clearly forsehadowed, than the Space-Magic ending at least.
But I would say that the indoctrination plot eclipses them both in forshadowing, true or not (which is yet to be confirmed) ME2 and 3 are simply saturated in it.