204 réponses à ce sujet

[OH-UP-THIS!]

Bioware just wants everybody to "GO GREEN"

Remember throughout the 3 games we were subjected to "recycled" maps. ROTFLMAO!

whole theme in a nutshell, I should go.

Seriously though, the geth/quarian thing, just an enormous diversion from what was supposed to be a "Dark Energy", storyline, started by a little known System called Haestrom, that never even got a side mention.

That 'star-brat' whining if we don't chose his way, then the 'Geth' and all other synths' "die" is just plain wrong, not to mention destroying the inter-galactic trade system, because we didn't play "its" little game to his satisfaction.

So many ways I could correct this nightmare, but sadly that would entail lawyers, and I abhor litigation.

[Tritium315]

It wasn't foreshadowed because it couldn't have been foreshadowed. The original planned ending for the trilogy had nothing to do with the **** we got. Any "foreshadowing" is just coincidence and straw grasping.

[ChildOfEden]

fle6isnow wrote...

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.

If only they vocalized that with the ending then I have no arguement over anything other than the other plot holes that are plagued in it.

[sherman9800]

ChildOfEden wrote...

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.

But in 2 Harbinger says "We are your genetic destiny" and "human: impressive techincal potential, impressive genetic malleability" And in making the human reaper in 2 is what the collectors were trying to achieve no?

[ChildOfEden]

Tritium315 wrote...

It wasn't foreshadowed because it couldn't have been foreshadowed. The original planned ending for the trilogy had nothing to do with the **** we got. Any "foreshadowing" is just coincidence and straw grasping.

Sure they could have planned a different ending, but that doesn't mean they weren't justified in making this ending the one. I'm stating that these events in the games by pure logic is a justifiable means of ending a series but just wasn't delivered in a good way. All by the plain fact they exist.

[cardinalally]

ChildOfEden wrote...

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.

This is a good way to think about it.  And I think we can all agree that if this is what they meant the delivery was just awful.  But the fact that the Reapers are controlled and unable to make their own choices is not explained just makes it more fusturating.  Is it because they have already made up their mind and cannot see outside their own limited viewpoint.  (This would make them the most limited lifeforms in existence:blink: and not the pinicale of evolution)  But this all needs to be in game.  Would this make me like the endings probably not, but I would have hated them less.  

[ChildOfEden]

sherman9800 wrote...

ChildOfEden wrote...

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.

But in 2 Harbinger says "We are your genetic destiny" and "human: impressive techincal potential, impressive genetic malleability" And in making the human reaper in 2 is what the collectors were trying to achieve no?

Well there are several interpretations for that, unfortunately I cannot list them all off the top of my head, but factors like how Shepard's the only being in the galaxy really fighting the Reapers at ME2 means having him as a husk would destroy any potential opposition to the Reapers planned invasion as evidenced by Sparatus dismissing the claim of reapers entirely.

[ChildOfEden]

cardinalally wrote...

ChildOfEden wrote...

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.

This is a good way to think about it.  And I think we can all agree that if this is what they meant the delivery was just awful.  But the fact that the Reapers are controlled and unable to make their own choices is not explained just makes it more fusturating.  Is it because they have already made up their mind and cannot see outside their own limited viewpoint.  (This would make them the most limited lifeforms in existence:blink: and not the pinicale of evolution)  But this all needs to be in game.  Would this make me like the endings probably not, but I would have hated them less.  

When comes to the reaction to the game's ending it is all a matter of opinion really...

[Tasker]

Tritium315 wrote...

It wasn't foreshadowed because it couldn't have been foreshadowed. The original planned ending for the trilogy had nothing to do with the **** we got. Any "foreshadowing" is just coincidence and straw grasping.

Exactly. The OP is grasping at straws and reading things that arn't there.
 
The original ending was to do with dark energy and something about the Reapers having to keep a balance to stop the universe going wonky.

So 'yes'  the ending was forshadowed, but it was a completely different one. It was all the dark energy side plots that Bioware decided to just ignore that was the forshadowing.  Not some insignificant, easily missable quest, that was obviously just put into ME1 as a filler.

[ChildOfEden]

Orkboy wrote...

Tritium315 wrote...

It wasn't foreshadowed because it couldn't have been foreshadowed. The original planned ending for the trilogy had nothing to do with the **** we got. Any "foreshadowing" is just coincidence and straw grasping.

Exactly. The OP is grasping at straws and reading things that arn't there.
 
The original ending was to do with dark energy and something about the Reapers having to keep a balance to stop the universe going wonky.

So 'yes'  the ending was forshadowed, but it was a completely different one. It was all the dark energy side plots that Bioware decided to just ignore that was the forshadowing.  Not some insignificant, easily missable quest, that was obviously just put into ME1 as a filler.

"The original ending" can be anything Casery Hudson and BioWare wanted it to be. they chose destroy, control, and synthesis, with an abyssmal point of having the Normandy blow up, get stranded on the jungle, and a legacy textbox pushing DLC. However, if they have chosen the other, Dark Energy as I have pointed out myself ALSO foreshadowing, they still would have been justified. It's the fact the way they put it together that we are dicussing. Let me repeat, this isn't a discussion about which ending would have been better, but whether or not this was a justifiable ending because of the evidence brought forth.
Next time read the rules or you'll be reported. Also vulgar language will not be tolerated.

[fle6isnow]

Orkboy wrote...

Tritium315 wrote...

It wasn't foreshadowed because it couldn't have been foreshadowed. The original planned ending for the trilogy had nothing to do with the **** we got. Any "foreshadowing" is just coincidence and straw grasping.

Exactly. The OP is grasping at straws and reading things that arn't there.
 
The original ending was to do with dark energy and something about the Reapers having to keep a balance to stop the universe going wonky.

So 'yes'  the ending was forshadowed, but it was a completely different one. It was all the dark energy side plots that Bioware decided to just ignore that was the forshadowing.  Not some insignificant, easily missable quest, that was obviously just put into ME1 as a filler.

It isn't just that quest though--there are a lot of other places in each game where the synthetic vs. organic conflict is important, and the choices are foreshadowed in the previous games as well. IMO there was more foreshadowing about synthetics vs. organics than there was about dark energy.

ME1 you have the casino AI, heretic geth, rogue Luna VI, and Saren as a bad example of synthesis.

ME2 you have Shepard as an example of good synthesis, Overlord as an example of bad synthesis, controling vs. destroying Legion, controling vs. destroying heretic geth, Legion vs. Tali, EDI vs. Shepard (if you choose to make Shepard distrustful and combative towards EDI).

ME3 you have the entire Rannoch arc, EDI trying to become more organic in her thought patterns, Legion sacrificing himself to give the geth individuality, etc. etc.

What do we have for dark energy? Nothing much in ME1, Haestrom and Parasini talking about it in ME2.

Modifié par fle6isnow, 07 avril 2012 - 11:06 .

[Evil Minion]

Yes, I think the ending was foreshadowed.

It didn't surprise me at all to learn that the Reapers were controlled by a "rogue AI."

I liked the substance of the ending, but the presentation was AWFUL.

[fle6isnow]

eeek, wrong post. will edit later.

Modifié par fle6isnow, 07 avril 2012 - 11:05 .

[Lmaoboat]

fle6isnow wrote...

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.

Going to have to disagree with this. Synthesis is even more ill-fitting than organics vs synthetics. The first problem is while there were transhumanist elements, there weren't transhumanist themes. They were sort of just there. Either to justify game mechanics, explain why Shepard isn't meat and tubes, or just to look "sci-fi." It doesn't really have any more themes than, say, Bionic Commando. Sure, it may have been brought up here and there, nowhere near enough for synthesis to not feel out of place. And then there's the problem of what it actually does. All the ghost kid does is give some kind of vague nonsense about evolution and DNA, but it never actually states how this is supposed to solve anything. If you're bringing everyone into some sort of singularity that cannot be surpassed by machines, than you might as well have just turned everyone into transcendent beings of energy how much you've changed the very essence of people. The former society will be like the first organism to crawl out of the ocean compared to what they are now. But if you've simply turned everyone into cyborgs, than you haven't fixed anything, because they can still make synthetics that can surpass them, and it's not like being part robot will stop them from killing you, because it's not just about "killing disgusting meatbags"

[ChildOfEden]

Evil Minion wrote...

Yes, I think the ending was foreshadowed.

It didn't surprise me at all to learn that the Reapers were controlled by a "rogue AI."

I liked the substance of the ending, but the presentation was AWFUL.

Glad you agree
However, I'd like to know more about your interpretation of the "rogue AI"

[Lmaoboat]

I actually think the Catalyst is VI, or at least a shackled AI, given how little he seems to take part in things.

[Evil Minion]

ChildOfEden wrote...

Evil Minion wrote...

Yes, I think the ending was foreshadowed.

It didn't surprise me at all to learn that the Reapers were controlled by a "rogue AI."

I liked the substance of the ending, but the presentation was AWFUL.

Glad you agree
However, I'd like to know more about your interpretation of the "rogue AI"

That was initial interpretation of what the Catalyst was.

We spent most of ME1 and ME2 blowing away "rogue AIs," and then, at the very end, it was like, "Oh, it was a rogue AI this who time."

The fact that it "lived" in the Citadel was a huge plothole, however.

[Tasker]

ChildOfEden wrote...

Orkboy wrote...

Tritium315 wrote...

It wasn't foreshadowed because it couldn't have been foreshadowed. The original planned ending for the trilogy had nothing to do with the **** we got. Any "foreshadowing" is just coincidence and straw grasping.

Exactly. The OP is grasping at straws and reading things that arn't there.
 
The original ending was to do with dark energy and something about the Reapers having to keep a balance to stop the universe going wonky.

So 'yes'  the ending was forshadowed, but it was a completely different one. It was all the dark energy side plots that Bioware decided to just ignore that was the forshadowing.  Not some insignificant, easily missable quest, that was obviously just put into ME1 as a filler.

"The original ending" can be anything Casery Hudson and BioWare wanted it to be. they chose destroy, control, and synthesis, with an abyssmal point of having the Normandy blow up, get stranded on the jungle, and a legacy textbox pushing DLC. However, if they have chosen the other, Dark Energy as I have pointed out myself ALSO foreshadowing, they still would have been justified. It's the fact the way they put it together that we are dicussing. Let me repeat, this isn't a discussion about which ending would have been better, but whether or not this was a justifiable ending because of the evidence brought forth.
Next time read the rules or you'll be reported. Also vulgar language will not be tolerated.

Sorry, but the original ending is what Drew original envisioned it to be at the time.  You can't come along 5 years later and arbitrarily decide that something you've just thought up was the original ending.  Drew has even posted it was supposed to be the Dark energy plot.

Where did I state that I thought either ending was better?

Which part of my post was breaking the rules?
 
Which part of my post was vulgar language?
 
Because i'd really like to know.

Modifié par Orkboy, 07 avril 2012 - 11:19 .

[Evil Minion]

Lmaoboat wrote...

I actually think the Catalyst is VI, or at least a shackled AI, given how little he seems to take part in things.

I think there's a question of just how much free will the Catalyst actually has.

The notion of "free will" pops up a couple of times in regards to organics and synthetics. Recall the conversations with EDI.

[ChildOfEden]

Lmaoboat wrote...

fle6isnow wrote...

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.

Going to have to disagree with this. Synthesis is even more ill-fitting than organics vs synthetics. The first problem is while there were transhumanist elements, there weren't transhumanist themes. They were sort of just there. Either to justify game mechanics, explain why Shepard isn't meat and tubes, or just to look "sci-fi." It doesn't really have any more themes than, say, Bionic Commando. Sure, it may have been brought up here and there, nowhere near enough for synthesis to not feel out of place. And then there's the problem of what it actually does. All the ghost kid does is give some kind of vague nonsense about evolution and DNA, but it never actually states how this is supposed to solve anything. If you're bringing everyone into some sort of singularity that cannot be surpassed by machines, than you might as well have just turned everyone into transcendent beings of energy how much you've changed the very essence of people. The former society will be like the first organism to crawl out of the ocean compared to what they are now. But if you've simply turned everyone into cyborgs, than you haven't fixed anything, because they can still make synthetics that can surpass them, and it's not like being part robot will stop them from killing you, because it's not just about "killing disgusting meatbags"

I think the Reapers have made it clear that synthesis is what they are trying to achieve as a second priority, in relation to their singular purpose of insuring organics are not destroyed by synthetics. However, I am going to get vague and say I cannot say this is all coherent because as I've said the delivery/presentation was subpar.
Synthesis can be achieved through any way, be it the ME3 ending, or a reaper defeat (harvested and then synthesised to make a new reaper) regardless "chaos" is brought to "order" but the contradictions to these are prolific, i.e. the Geth.
Assuming that an "if" scenario can occur is that of being both organic and sythetic, this is proved by their natural response to question life's ambiguity. However the Reapers are transhuman, or at least in a way where EDI confirms that the Reapers are bio-synthetics, but they do not or have lost the ability to comprehend and understand understanding itself. They disregard the Geth, and the peace they've made with the Quarians.
Synthesis in the ME3 ending is as close as being a Reaper with the ability to understand. As I've made the case Reapers are the opposite of understanding.
If that makes sense...

[Artking3]

The ME1 Citadel Mission does not provide enough foreshadowing in that it was an OPTIONAL mission. If you missed it, you would have no foreshadowing whatsoever.

[Conquerthecity]

 Yeah. 'Cause foreshadowing in an optional side-mission I barely ever did is totally a good idea. 

[ChildOfEden]

Orkboy wrote...

ChildOfEden wrote...

Orkboy wrote...

Tritium315 wrote...

It wasn't foreshadowed because it couldn't have been foreshadowed. The original planned ending for the trilogy had nothing to do with the **** we got. Any "foreshadowing" is just coincidence and straw grasping.

Exactly. The OP is grasping at straws and reading things that arn't there.
 
The original ending was to do with dark energy and something about the Reapers having to keep a balance to stop the universe going wonky.

So 'yes'  the ending was forshadowed, but it was a completely different one. It was all the dark energy side plots that Bioware decided to just ignore that was the forshadowing.  Not some insignificant, easily missable quest, that was obviously just put into ME1 as a filler.

"The original ending" can be anything Casery Hudson and BioWare wanted it to be. they chose destroy, control, and synthesis, with an abyssmal point of having the Normandy blow up, get stranded on the jungle, and a legacy textbox pushing DLC. However, if they have chosen the other, Dark Energy as I have pointed out myself ALSO foreshadowing, they still would have been justified. It's the fact the way they put it together that we are dicussing. Let me repeat, this isn't a discussion about which ending would have been better, but whether or not this was a justifiable ending because of the evidence brought forth.
Next time read the rules or you'll be reported. Also vulgar language will not be tolerated.

Sorry, but the original ending is what Drew original envisioned it to be at the time.  You can't come along 5 years later and arbitrarily decide that something you've just thought up was the original ending.  Drew has even posted it was supposed to be the Dark energy plot.

Where did I state that I thought either ending was better?

Which part of my post was breaking the rules?
 
Which part of my post was vulgar language?
 
Because i'd really like to know.

I'm sorry, it seems I directed that at you when I meant to direct that at the person you had commented on.

[Tasker]

ChildOfEden wrote...

I'm sorry, it seems I directed that at you when I meant to direct that at the person you had commented on.

Fair enough.



-EDIT-

( Though I will admit, that in other posts I have used profanities - but they were heartfelt, spur of the moment comments and never in any way meant to be offensive to anyone )

Modifié par Orkboy, 07 avril 2012 - 11:24 .

[ChildOfEden]

Evil Minion wrote...

ChildOfEden wrote...

Evil Minion wrote...

Yes, I think the ending was foreshadowed.

It didn't surprise me at all to learn that the Reapers were controlled by a "rogue AI."

I liked the substance of the ending, but the presentation was AWFUL.

Glad you agree
However, I'd like to know more about your interpretation of the "rogue AI"

That was initial interpretation of what the Catalyst was.

We spent most of ME1 and ME2 blowing away "rogue AIs," and then, at the very end, it was like, "Oh, it was a rogue AI this who time."

The fact that it "lived" in the Citadel was a huge plothole, however.

Yeah, it begged questions like who really built the Citadel, and if so then who built the Reapers? Because apparently the Catalyst built the Reapers but the Reapers built the Citadel.