204 réponses à ce sujet

[ChildOfEden]

Zix13 wrote...

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. 

Sorry, my computer bugged on me, re-read our previous comment I made I edited it.

[ChildOfEden]

Isichar wrote...

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.

lol I was under the impression Lmaoboat knew what the theme was.

Modifié par ChildOfEden, 07 avril 2012 - 09:51 .

[ChildOfEden]

Sad Dragon wrote...

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

I guess we're all just guessing as of now...
:/

[Zix13]

ChildOfEden wrote...

Sorry, my computer bugged on me, re-read our previous comment I made I edited it.

Still not getting it. I stated that the geth DO avoid conflict. The geth are important to the story in all 3 games. In the first, the geth are agressive, you discover in me2 that those aren't geth, they're a small splinter group. The geth avoid conflict despite the attempted genocide on their race. They let the Quarians live despite having the opportunity to destroy them utterly at the end of the morning war. I think the geth conflict thoroughly ends any debate about the inevitability of conflict between organics and synthetics being a developed aspect to the theme. 

Modifié par Zix13, 07 avril 2012 - 09:57 .

[cardinalally]

Was the theme of organic v. synthetic in the game yes. Was it even one of the central themes yes. But how the game presented it up until the end was peace was possible if both sides would take a second and listen to the other side. The geth/quarian conflict came about because the quarians attacked and refused to listen to reason. The conflict is resolved when they actually are forced to realize there can possibly be a peace. Will the peace last, who knows. But peace is always iffy.

My big problem with how the ending presented this theme is that it takes everything we have done and learned about synthetics and says that no matter what we are fated to fight and never understand each other. This is directly contradicted in game. Legion in ME2 states they wish to understand organics. Organics are different but they wish to understand. How is this different than when any different groups meets and for peace to be achieved you have to gain an understanding of the other sides perspectives. This conflict of lack of understanding is not unique to organics/synthetic conflict but true of all groups that have different perspectives. How the end presents the conflict seems to say that unless we all think and believe the same thing then we are doomed to conflict. There is no room for understanding and respect for differences. Well that is at least why I HATED how the ending presented the organic v. synthetic conflict.

[Billabong2011]

ChildOfEden wrote...

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.

True, though independent of my last statement in that argument, I still feel that the justifications were not there. Again, as another poster mentioned, the resolution to the organic-synthetic conflict was in the conclusion of the Geth-Quarian conflict, and how the player chose to end it was reflective of how that conflict was resolved, further illustrating the arching concept of choice.

It's mentioned many times throughout the series that there is a certain 'order' to machines and a certain 'chaos' of man, but I beg you to consider just what this means. Though we can argue synthetics are logical, rational, and organized creations of man ("to bring order to the chaos") this is refuted by individuals such as EDI, Legion, and the Geth (once Legion's perosnality was directly disseminated). EDI chooses to rewrite her programming so as to incorporate ideals such as 'love, art, duty,' Legion chooses to sacrifice himself for the good of his people, the Geth choose to aid the Quarians in rebuilding their homeworld in light of having just been under siege by the very same race. In actuality, these actions would go against the 'order' of their programming - their service to their own self-preservation. In a sense, this is a sort of 'chaos' that allows them to make such decisions, indicative of the fact that said 'chaos' is what makes one truly alive.

For me, then, it was never a matter of the Reapers as synthetics opposing organics, but, rather, the Reapers as the vessels who perpetuate a cycle that wrenches this freedom of choice from those chaotic enough to pursue it. As 'transcendent' as the Reapers may be in intelligence and complexity, they directly oppose that which offers meaning to the universe.

[ChildOfEden]

Zix13 wrote...

ChildOfEden wrote...

Sorry, my computer bugged on me, re-read our previous comment I made I edited it.

Still not getting it. I stated that the geth DO avoid conflict. The geth are important to the story in all 3 games. In the first, the geth are agressive, you discover in me2 that those aren't geth, they're a small splinter group. The geth avoid conflict despite the attempted genocide on their race. They let the Quarians live despite having the opportunity to destroy them utterly at the end of the morning war. I think the geth conflict thoroughly ends any debate about the inevitability of conflict between organics and synthetics being a developed aspect to the theme. 

You seem confused, it isn't the fact the Geth don't want the conflict, but the theme has to be seen on the other end. It is Organics vs Synthetics, this is the assumed theme, not Synthetics are letting go and so the result is Organics are letting go of all antagonization too.

[ChildOfEden]

Billabong2011 wrote...

ChildOfEden wrote...

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.

True, though independent of my last statement in that argument, I still feel that the justifications were not there. Again, as another poster mentioned, the resolution to the organic-synthetic conflict was in the conclusion of the Geth-Quarian conflict, and how the player chose to end it was reflective of how that conflict was resolved, further illustrating the arching concept of choice.

It's mentioned many times throughout the series that there is a certain 'order' to machines and a certain 'chaos' of man, but I beg you to consider just what this means. Though we can argue synthetics are logical, rational, and organized creations of man ("to bring order to the chaos") this is refuted by individuals such as EDI, Legion, and the Geth (once Legion's perosnality was directly disseminated). EDI chooses to rewrite her programming so as to incorporate ideals such as 'love, art, duty,' Legion chooses to sacrifice himself for the good of his people, the Geth choose to aid the Quarians in rebuilding their homeworld in light of having just been under siege by the very same race. In actuality, these actions would go against the 'order' of their programming - their service to their own self-preservation. In a sense, this is a sort of 'chaos' that allows them to make such decisions, indicative of the fact that said 'chaos' is what makes one truly alive.

For me, then, it was never a matter of the Reapers as synthetics opposing organics, but, rather, the Reapers as the vessels who perpetuate a cycle that wrenches this freedom of choice from those chaotic enough to pursue it. As 'transcendent' as the Reapers may be in intelligence and complexity, they directly oppose that which offers meaning to the universe.

Well the synthesis ending ending seemed to make this as a point, however, I am not disagreeing with you, I believe BioWare was trying to go through the ending with this direction of plot in mind but failed to execute it.

[Billabong2011]

ChildOfEden wrote...

Billabong2011 wrote...

ChildOfEden wrote...

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.

True, though independent of my last statement in that argument, I still feel that the justifications were not there. Again, as another poster mentioned, the resolution to the organic-synthetic conflict was in the conclusion of the Geth-Quarian conflict, and how the player chose to end it was reflective of how that conflict was resolved, further illustrating the arching concept of choice.

It's mentioned many times throughout the series that there is a certain 'order' to machines and a certain 'chaos' of man, but I beg you to consider just what this means. Though we can argue synthetics are logical, rational, and organized creations of man ("to bring order to the chaos") this is refuted by individuals such as EDI, Legion, and the Geth (once Legion's perosnality was directly disseminated). EDI chooses to rewrite her programming so as to incorporate ideals such as 'love, art, duty,' Legion chooses to sacrifice himself for the good of his people, the Geth choose to aid the Quarians in rebuilding their homeworld in light of having just been under siege by the very same race. In actuality, these actions would go against the 'order' of their programming - their service to their own self-preservation. In a sense, this is a sort of 'chaos' that allows them to make such decisions, indicative of the fact that said 'chaos' is what makes one truly alive.

For me, then, it was never a matter of the Reapers as synthetics opposing organics, but, rather, the Reapers as the vessels who perpetuate a cycle that wrenches this freedom of choice from those chaotic enough to pursue it. As 'transcendent' as the Reapers may be in intelligence and complexity, they directly oppose that which offers meaning to the universe.

Well the synthesis ending ending seemed to make this as a point, however, I am not disagreeing with you, I believe BioWare was trying to go through the ending with this direction of plot in mind but failed to execute it.

Agreed I hope you don't think I'm trying to argue with you -- I agree with your points, I'm just offering reason as to why, as you've stated, Bioware failed to execute the endings well. They clearly had a vision in doing so, one you've analyzed well, I'm just adding to the fact that, not only did they fail to deliver a resolution to the conflict illustrated at the game's end, but failed to address just what it was the game needed resolution of most.

[ChildOfEden]

cardinalally wrote...

Was the theme of organic v. synthetic in the game yes. Was it even one of the central themes yes. But how the game presented it up until the end was peace was possible if both sides would take a second and listen to the other side. The geth/quarian conflict came about because the quarians attacked and refused to listen to reason. The conflict is resolved when they actually are forced to realize there can possibly be a peace. Will the peace last, who knows. But peace is always iffy.

My big problem with how the ending presented this theme is that it takes everything we have done and learned about synthetics and says that no matter what we are fated to fight and never understand each other. This is directly contradicted in game. Legion in ME2 states they wish to understand organics. Organics are different but they wish to understand. How is this different than when any different groups meets and for peace to be achieved you have to gain an understanding of the other sides perspectives. This conflict of lack of understanding is not unique to organics/synthetic conflict but true of all groups that have different perspectives. How the end presents the conflict seems to say that unless we all think and believe the same thing then we are doomed to conflict. There is no room for understanding and respect for differences. Well that is at least why I HATED how the ending presented the organic v. synthetic conflict.

I agree completely!
However, the justification of the current endings is that the Reapers act as the embodiment of the opposite of understanding. With this in mind, they do not have the understanding to be able to create their own choice, so the choices you make in the Ending as Shepard is justified, but the delivery was just awful.

[ChildOfEden]

Billabong2011 wrote...

ChildOfEden wrote...

Billabong2011 wrote...

ChildOfEden wrote...

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.

True, though independent of my last statement in that argument, I still feel that the justifications were not there. Again, as another poster mentioned, the resolution to the organic-synthetic conflict was in the conclusion of the Geth-Quarian conflict, and how the player chose to end it was reflective of how that conflict was resolved, further illustrating the arching concept of choice.

It's mentioned many times throughout the series that there is a certain 'order' to machines and a certain 'chaos' of man, but I beg you to consider just what this means. Though we can argue synthetics are logical, rational, and organized creations of man ("to bring order to the chaos") this is refuted by individuals such as EDI, Legion, and the Geth (once Legion's perosnality was directly disseminated). EDI chooses to rewrite her programming so as to incorporate ideals such as 'love, art, duty,' Legion chooses to sacrifice himself for the good of his people, the Geth choose to aid the Quarians in rebuilding their homeworld in light of having just been under siege by the very same race. In actuality, these actions would go against the 'order' of their programming - their service to their own self-preservation. In a sense, this is a sort of 'chaos' that allows them to make such decisions, indicative of the fact that said 'chaos' is what makes one truly alive.

For me, then, it was never a matter of the Reapers as synthetics opposing organics, but, rather, the Reapers as the vessels who perpetuate a cycle that wrenches this freedom of choice from those chaotic enough to pursue it. As 'transcendent' as the Reapers may be in intelligence and complexity, they directly oppose that which offers meaning to the universe.

Well the synthesis ending ending seemed to make this as a point, however, I am not disagreeing with you, I believe BioWare was trying to go through the ending with this direction of plot in mind but failed to execute it.

Agreed I hope you don't think I'm trying to argue with you -- I agree with your points, I'm just offering reason as to why, as you've stated, Bioware failed to execute the endings well. They clearly had a vision in doing so, one you've analyzed well, I'm just adding to the fact that, not only did they fail to deliver a resolution to the conflict illustrated at the game's end, but failed to address just what it was the game needed resolution of most.

Like I said I agree with all your points and but wish to make my understanding of the delivered ending more prominent and coherent.

And thank you for your great input!

[Lmaoboat]

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 know, it wasn't a matter the if theme[s] used were correct but that if BioWare was correct in using the foreshadowed theme.

To me, the overall themes are strength through diversity and diplomacy. Through the series you're constantly shown how valuable each race is, and how they all contribute to galactic society in their own way. You also constantly shown how situations can be resolved by just talking to people, Saren and the Illusive Man being prime examples. Thought I don't think you should be able to "talk" the Reapers out of anything in the end. I think the themes also depend on whether you're Paragon or Renegade. For Paragon, it would be standing by your principles and doing the right thing even if it might come back to bite you. It's also about showing mercy, and letting people have a chance to make the right choice themselves. Renegade is about the ends justifying the means and making calculated sacrifices for the greater good. For the ending to reflect these things, I feel it would still require sacrifice if you don't do almost everything right, a la the suicide mission. The ending might have showed these to some degree, but it was far overshadowed in the incongruous theme of organics vs synthetics.

[ChildOfEden]

Lmaoboat wrote...

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 know, it wasn't a matter the if theme[s] used were correct but that if BioWare was correct in using the foreshadowed theme.

To me, the overall themes are strength through diversity and diplomacy. Through the series you're constantly shown how valuable each race is, and how they all contribute to galactic society in their own way. You also constantly shown how situations can be resolved by just talking to people, Saren and the Illusive Man being prime examples. Thought I don't think you should be able to "talk" the Reapers out of anything in the end. I think the themes also depend on whether you're Paragon or Renegade. For Paragon, it would be standing by your principles and doing the right thing even if it might come back to bite you. It's also about showing mercy, and letting people have a chance to make the right choice themselves. Renegade is about the ends justifying the means and making calculated sacrifices for the greater good. For the ending to reflect these things, I feel it would still require sacrifice if you don't do almost everything right, a la the suicide mission. The ending might have showed these to some degree, but it was far overshadowed in the incongruous theme of organics vs synthetics.

Hmm... this will require some thought to tell you the truth lol
But you know, understandings don't come at you in a blink of an eye.

[Galm One]

Dark energy was better foreshadowed as it was an incomprehensible mystery to the Quarians in ME2 matching the promise of an "incomprehensible" motive for the Reapers. ME1 was an introduction to the threat of the Reapers. ME2 showed how they operated and what their harvest was about. I felt Dark energy was a hint at why they started all this in the first place and that would be the core of ME3.

Who? How? and Why?

The AI's will always kill organics is only ever rammed down your throat in ME3 if you have the Javik DLC and go out of your way to hassle him on the Normandy at every oppurtunity. But then ME3 negates that by showing the Geth to be the most rational and reasonable species in the franchise.

If they really wanted this ending to work a simple fourth option to argue that the Reapers logic is wrong, available based on your actions throughout the series should have been added. Dispute a sub theme with what is one of the primary themes, the unification of different societies and species to achieve a common goal.

[ChildOfEden]

Galm One wrote...

Dark energy was better foreshadowed as it was an incomprehensible mystery to the Quarians in ME2 matching the promise of an "incomprehensible" motive for the Reapers. ME1 was an introduction to the threat of the Reapers. ME2 showed how they operated and what their harvest was about. I felt Dark energy was a hint at why they started all this in the first place and that would be the core of ME3.

Who? How? and Why?

The AI's will always kill organics is only ever rammed down your throat in ME3 if you have the Javik DLC and go out of your way to hassle him on the Normandy at every oppurtunity. But then ME3 negates that by showing the Geth to be the most rational and reasonable species in the franchise.

If they really wanted this ending to work a simple fourth option to argue that the Reapers logic is wrong, available based on your actions throughout the series should have been added. Dispute a sub theme with what is one of the primary themes, the unification of different societies and species to achieve a common goal.

No one saying that a new ending wouldn't be appreciated (;

[Ultra Prism]

I totally forgot this mission, but its interesting point ... if thought with this point of view then the endings are basically executed in poor fashion

[ChildOfEden]

[Senario]

I personally think that you could have gotten away with the ending if you had skipped Mass Effect 2. Certainly a main theme of ME1 was "Synthetics vs Organics" but as the series progressed with Mass Effect 2, the simple fact is that no amount of foreshadowing is good enough for a shift in theme.

The new theme was "uniting of diverse peoples to fight against a threat to all life." The introduction of Legion and the geth heretics completely overwrites that AI's and Organics must ALWAYS fight.

[ChildOfEden]

Ultra Prism wrote...

I totally forgot this mission, but its interesting point ... if thought with this point of view then the endings are basically executed in poor fashion

Exactly.

[thefallen2far]

I remember that scene, I thought it was cool.  Do you remember that scene where you were hired to stop a slave driver and a Red Sand dealer?  That sub quest was 10 times longer but as the series went on, it became of smaller and smaller relevance.  Killing Fist in the first one was smaller and smaller effect.  There was a Salarian that was trying to set up the machines to pay out in an algorithem.  Or the human right first movement that asked Shepard to be a sponser. These are all random, great, short side quests that fleshed out the experience.  There wasn't anything that indicated the AI or synthetics in that game was a central theme. 

It's as juxpositioned as if the revelation was that Reapers were actually trying to get people addicted to Red Sand by making their lives completely unbearable so they get addicted to drugs.  The AI and the synths aspect were such small aspects to the first game.  The badguys were robots... but they were stock bad guys.  The plot was more cetered on perseverence and corruption were. Remember the corporations that were trying to cover up the Rachni reasearch facility? That entire plot for a third of the game was about undoing the corruption of the research corporation on Zhu's Hope.....

OH MY GOD! I JUST REALIZED! THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED! The first game had a theme about evil corporations being greedy and destructive, EA takes over and suddenly, it focuses on.... killing yourself for the greater good.

[sherman9800]

Billabong2011 wrote...

ChildOfEden wrote...

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.

True, though independent of my last statement in that argument, I still feel that the justifications were not there. Again, as another poster mentioned, the resolution to the organic-synthetic conflict was in the conclusion of the Geth-Quarian conflict, and how the player chose to end it was reflective of how that conflict was resolved, further illustrating the arching concept of choice.

It's mentioned many times throughout the series that there is a certain 'order' to machines and a certain 'chaos' of man, but I beg you to consider just what this means. Though we can argue synthetics are logical, rational, and organized creations of man ("to bring order to the chaos") this is refuted by individuals such as EDI, Legion, and the Geth (once Legion's perosnality was directly disseminated). EDI chooses to rewrite her programming so as to incorporate ideals such as 'love, art, duty,' Legion chooses to sacrifice himself for the good of his people, the Geth choose to aid the Quarians in rebuilding their homeworld in light of having just been under siege by the very same race. In actuality, these actions would go against the 'order' of their programming - their service to their own self-preservation. In a sense, this is a sort of 'chaos' that allows them to make such decisions, indicative of the fact that said 'chaos' is what makes one truly alive.

For me, then, it was never a matter of the Reapers as synthetics opposing organics, but, rather, the Reapers as the vessels who perpetuate a cycle that wrenches this freedom of choice from those chaotic enough to pursue it. As 'transcendent' as the Reapers may be in intelligence and complexity, they directly oppose that which offers meaning to the universe.

Really awesome civil discussion so far.

This pretty much sums up how I feel about the organic vs synthetic debate. The reapers themselves created a certain chaos in the geth by spreading the viral code in order for them to turn on the organics. I found it odd that the catalyst spoke in such absolutes when just before speaking with EDI on the Normandy Shepard helped her determine that her feelings are what make her more than just an AI.

The synthesis choice doesnt really make much sense to me in the regard that, it's what the reapers wanted all along. And the conversations with EDI and Legion make it seem like its not how you are made in terms of DNA and parts but how you percieve the world around you.

I hope that all came out clearly, I need to finish a 2nd playthrough of 3 but Im working my way up from 1 again and just started 2. 

[ChildOfEden]

thefallen2far wrote...

I remember that scene, I thought it was cool.  Do you remember that scene where you were hired to stop a slave driver and a Red Sand dealer?  That sub quest was 10 times longer but as the series went on, it became of smaller and smaller relevance.  Killing Fist in the first one was smaller and smaller effect.  There was a Salarian that was trying to set up the machines to pay out in an algorithem.  Or the human right first movement that asked Shepard to be a sponser. These are all random, great, short side quests that fleshed out the experience.  There wasn't anything that indicated the AI or synthetics in that game was a central theme. 

It's as juxpositioned as if the revelation was that Reapers were actually trying to get people addicted to Red Sand by making their lives completely unbearable so they get addicted to drugs.  The AI and the synths aspect were such small aspects to the first game.  The badguys were robots... but they were stock bad guys.  The plot was more cetered on perseverence and corruption were. Remember the corporations that were trying to cover up the Rachni reasearch facility? That entire plot for a third of the game was about undoing the corruption of the research corporation on Zhu's Hope.....

OH MY GOD! I JUST REALIZED! THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED! The first game had a theme about evil corporations being greedy and destructive, EA takes over and suddenly, it focuses on.... killing yourself for the greater good.

Umm... okay?

[ChildOfEden]

sherman9800 wrote...

Billabong2011 wrote...

ChildOfEden wrote...

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.

True, though independent of my last statement in that argument, I still feel that the justifications were not there. Again, as another poster mentioned, the resolution to the organic-synthetic conflict was in the conclusion of the Geth-Quarian conflict, and how the player chose to end it was reflective of how that conflict was resolved, further illustrating the arching concept of choice.

It's mentioned many times throughout the series that there is a certain 'order' to machines and a certain 'chaos' of man, but I beg you to consider just what this means. Though we can argue synthetics are logical, rational, and organized creations of man ("to bring order to the chaos") this is refuted by individuals such as EDI, Legion, and the Geth (once Legion's perosnality was directly disseminated). EDI chooses to rewrite her programming so as to incorporate ideals such as 'love, art, duty,' Legion chooses to sacrifice himself for the good of his people, the Geth choose to aid the Quarians in rebuilding their homeworld in light of having just been under siege by the very same race. In actuality, these actions would go against the 'order' of their programming - their service to their own self-preservation. In a sense, this is a sort of 'chaos' that allows them to make such decisions, indicative of the fact that said 'chaos' is what makes one truly alive.

For me, then, it was never a matter of the Reapers as synthetics opposing organics, but, rather, the Reapers as the vessels who perpetuate a cycle that wrenches this freedom of choice from those chaotic enough to pursue it. As 'transcendent' as the Reapers may be in intelligence and complexity, they directly oppose that which offers meaning to the universe.

Really awesome civil discussion so far.

This pretty much sums up how I feel about the organic vs synthetic debate. The reapers themselves created a certain chaos in the geth by spreading the viral code in order for them to turn on the organics. I found it odd that the catalyst spoke in such absolutes when just before speaking with EDI on the Normandy Shepard helped her determine that her feelings are what make her more than just an AI.

The synthesis choice doesnt really make much sense to me in the regard that, it's what the reapers wanted all along. And the conversations with EDI and Legion make it seem like its not how you are made in terms of DNA and parts but how you percieve the world around you.

I hope that all came out clearly, I need to finish a 2nd playthrough of 3 but Im working my way up from 1 again and just started 2. 

Civil discussion was what I was going for lol
As for the Synthesis Ending, it wasn't what the reapers wanted, it was what Saren wanted. He "deluded" himself into thinking that evolution's apex was with the infusion of "steel and flesh."
In my opinion, the Reapers are the complete opposite of understanding, they were built with a singular purpose. Almost more VI in nature than AI. Like Vigil says in ME1, "it isn't about understanding them, but of stopping them."
But why not understand them? It worked great for the Geth, and the Geth are now in peace with the Quarians.

Modifié par ChildOfEden, 07 avril 2012 - 10:30 .

[fle6isnow]

I recommend reading ardensia's blog on the synthesis ending, as the post touches some of the points made here. Specifically this part:

As you play through Mass Effect, you run into synthetic life forms that
basically want to become more organic. EDI is constantly trying to
figure out humor, among other things. Legion gives his life so the geth
can make decisions as individuals. Even that rather explodey and
argumentative AI you ran into back in ME1 desired not so much destroying
organics, but a body so it wouldn't be chained to machines and systems,
but would be free to walk about as it pleased. Sure, not all synthetics
feel this way, and even those that do are picking and choosing which
traits they would like. But the point is that some are looking at
organic life and seeing value in its approach to certain things, even if
they don't fully understand it.

Likewise, organics have added
quite a bit of synthetics into their being. Ever read the codex entry on
how all the technicians interact with those holographic panels that
control... well, everything? They have synthetic sensors put in their
hands. Omnitools? Technology embedded into the wrists. Biotic implants?
Quarian environmental suits? The point is, organics have definitely seen
and embraced some aspects of synthetic living. I'm sure there are some
crazy people living somewhere in the ME universe that refuse to use
omitools, but in the setting of this world, they'd be viewed as just
that: crazy people.

And that's not even getting into Shepherd's
synthetics, which are so extensive that throughout ME3, Shepherd has
several opportunities to question whether or not she still counts as
human, or even organic. She's obviously stronger and tougher than anyone
who isn't krogan.

I should mention the conversation with Joker about the salarian "transhumans" (transalarians?) as well as another thing that foreshadowed synthesis.

[Shadow2G]

The AI money laundering scheme was too short and inconsequential to serve as an effective means of foreshadowing. If resolving an inherent created vs. creator conflict was meant to be the central theme of the trilogy, then it needed to be reflected in the Legion's and Tali's story lines in ME2 and in ME3. That and in Joker and EDI's relationship.

Instead those story lines helped to lessen the sense of synthetic against organic conflict, and ultimately resolved the issue rather nicely on Ranoch and on the Citadel.

I'm not saying a dark matter crises would have been better point of focus or better executed, but it feels like there was significantly more set up for it.