204 réponses à ce sujet

[ChildOfEden]

rpgfan321 wrote...

If that side mission (one with tracking an illegal AI) was that important to foreshadowing ME3's ending then they would have made it part of the main mission or make it a crucial side quest. I know it's one of the examples.

Indeed the idea, organic vs. synthetics, are scattered across the trilogy and seeps into the main story. It is a huge theme because of the Quarians vs. Geth. What you see in the game as "peace" in the game is only temporary because history do repeat itself. Maybe in the same way or in different variations, but the underlying problem/conflict will be inevitably the same. I can see what the Catalyst refers to when it says that it is ultimately inevitable that all Organics will be eliminated. But that's in the long, looong term, and also there could be multiple different ways that will happen.

It's just how the Catalyst says the inevitability that just irks me. It's too fatalistic. I mean as a player I had to see so many beloved character die to get to that point, and there isn't even an option to ask why? Human beings always question everything and yet Shepard can't be inquisitive to the thing that will bring destruction?

Any theme that has two opposing forces together will never have a definitive answer. In my opinion, the Catalyst (the kid) shouldn't have been touched at all. The ending should have just been saying goodbye to Shepard and the war.

That side mission was just a way of vocalizing the theme. Imagine it like... Javik. Really he is not that important to the ME3, in terms of progression and ending sequence. However, he is background info on the protheans, same concept here.

[Peranor]

Oh the ending was foreshadowed alright. Just check my sign

[ChildOfEden]

XqctaX wrote...

if i came of as harsh, im sorry. that was not intented.
my emotions get the better of me and shine thru sometimes
and the ending debacle has me torn in peices sometimes lol.

No, I thought you were very civil. And yes I know emotions can be the better of any of us, I am the OP and so I have to defend my reasoning with as much humbleness and respect as I can.

Modifié par ChildOfEden, 08 avril 2012 - 12:31 .

[ChildOfEden]

atum wrote...

ChildOfEden wrote...

Artking3 wrote...

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.

It was actually foreshadowed in many cases, this was just a point of actualizing it, and vocalizing it.

Can you give more examples? It might help to edit add them to the OP, because I have to agree that goofy ME1 side quest isn't very compelling as foreshadowing.  Did Mac Walters even work on ME1?

I'll get right on it!

[Giantdeathrobot]

Oh, the key themes of the ending were foreshadowed alright, and were the least of the problems with the ending. The notion of choosing between the Reaper's destruction, controlling them or coming to some sort of a consensus is good at it's core. In fact, my own headcanon endings incorporate these themes. They are good and fitting.

But the implementation is truly horrible. No need to go further into that. But Synthesis is the worst of all; instead of coming to a consensus, Shepard imposes homogenization on the whole galaxy and magically solves the Catalyst's problem. Awful, awful writing, and completely derails the themes.

[Zix13]

ChildOfEden wrote...

Zix13 wrote...



The issue is that the synthetics must be the agressors in order to support the logic of the ending. Reapers reap to prevent synthetics from wiping out all organics. Geth do not look for conflict, they will defend themselves, but they've shown they will not drive organics to extinction. If they were attempting to forshadow the "revelations" of the ending, they wouldn't have a recurring conflict/major plot-point that suggests the opposite. 

I agree completely, however, as I've posted to numerous people, The Reapers do not care for what happens as they have a singular purpose, which is the logic of organics doomed to synthetics. This make the Reapers the opposite of understanding anything other than what occurred to them before the events seen. In a way this makes all reapers more VI than AI, as Vigil, a VI, once said, "You're survival is on stopping them [reapers] not in understanding them."
But why not? The Geth did this. They disregarded this altogether. So my understanding of the Reapers must be true.
I'm not going to say this isn't a plot hole or anything, but with the understanding from the AI on the Citadel, which is so closely remeiscient of the choices you've been given by the Catalyst, there is a correlation between the two. And since Signal Tracking was the first to come, that was candid foreshadowing. In my opinion.

destroy vs. control also appeared in ME2 on the heretic base, which is a better example since it was a more significant plotline. Sure, that can be interpretted as forshadowing. However, control vs. destroy is a recurring theme. You have synthesis in the ending. This has not been suggested or forshadowed at all. No, I do think that they did play off the control/ destroy theme. I doubt they thought about it until they realized they had to finish the ending by monday morning. If they picked any other theme you'd be able to say they forshadowed it as well, simply because it is a developed theme. 


In regards to Reapers are more VI than AI:
"We are each a nation, independent, free of all weakness" They are a consensus of programs, which legion mentions in ME2, however, that consensus is localized to one reaper. So they are AI in the same sense as the geth, which are obviously able to change their views based on evidence. 

Modifié par Zix13, 08 avril 2012 - 12:41 .

[XqctaX]

ChildOfEden wrote...

XqctaX wrote...

I dont agree with the op's speculation about foreshadowing and theres two reasons why i dont do that.

when the story of game 1 was beeing written, the intended conclution was darkmatter
(this has been stated by for example drew himself and he was leadwriter then)
and as such we do know beyond doubt it was not the writers intention to foreshadow the ending that was then made in me3. cold, hard, facts.

what it was on the other hand is a connection to the geth and quarian conflict.
nothing more, nothing less.and that AI made an erroness conclution from that conflict,
a conflict we can have resolved.


the game has allways been about shepards struggel to save the galaxy.
not syntetics agains organics. that was introduced with only 14 lines of text in the last few minutes of the story.

the ending was changed during the writing of mass effect 3. and not thought of before and as such was not intentionally forshadowed in anyway.

to belive anything other than that is to reach for straws so to speak
so i strongy dissagree with your speculation. since known facts do not support them.

I'm not going to disagree with how dark energy would have made more sense. However, you fail to realize that Casey Hudson was the one who created the series, the lead on the project, and the one who was consultated on before the actual serialization of written, or nonwritten material.
He stated on documentrary that the "endings" were made before they even developed it.

Yes Casey did say that. casey  was  the Dx, Drew was the lead. all true.
But you need to understand the following.  they created it together 
the ENDING that was created when they were writing and creating the hole mass effect universe,
the very same ending casey was talking about. IS the dark matter Ending.

and Drew said that was the ending on the table untill he left. AFTER half ME2 was completed.
and i can argue that is was on the table during release of DLC to ME2.
im quoing drew here "- Dark Energy, species preservation and humanity's unique genetic advantages, touched on at several points in Mass Effect 1 and 2. You might remember Dark Energy from the Haelstrom mission in Mass Effect 2, or from the Arrival DLC" 

if you argue against that your are second guessing both drew and caseys  own statements.
your statement is simply untrue, facts show so. heck drew and casey says so.
0};$ALetterEx $ALetterEx {200};$ALet

[ChildOfEden]

Guys I'm off at a break, my, ahem, boyfriend is back from the hospital and before he goes I need a good ravaging. When I get back I'm updating my OP, and I will answer and reply to the wonderful input everyone is putting up.

[Warrior Craess]

williamson52290 wrote...

I would agree that the endings in ME 3 follow the theme introduced in ME 1 which is can organic and synthetic life co-exist with one another. The three endings have potential to be very interesting and they do imply big consequences I just think that they could have been done some what better to add more closure to the series.

it was one of many themes. It was however one of the smaller themes overall though.  There was the law vs criminal theme, etc etc......

there was also the biotic mistreatment theme, the Evil corporation theme, both of which got more play time than the AI vs organics theme.

The reapers were too unknown and beyond comprehension to accurately fit into the AI vs Organic theme, and the geth we're tools of Sarens. A tool being used is not a theme. 

[fle6isnow]

ChildOfEden wrote...

Guys I'm off at a break, my, ahem, boyfriend is back from the hospital and before he goes I need a good ravaging. When I get back I'm updating my OP, and I will answer and reply to the wonderful input everyone is putting up.

Eden, while you enjoy the..."ahem-ing"... I shall help with some of this. Sorry if I repeat stuff I already posted before; I'm just doing a memory dump here, more or less.


ME1:
-Casino AI, which you already explained. But I would add here that it is also trying a sort of synthesis--it is trying to be like organics in the sense that it wants mobility, it wants free will, and it wants a community, as seen by it trying to join the geth by uploading itself into a spaceship and flying to Geth space.
-Heretic geth as AI in conflict with organics
-Rogue Luna VI: before she was EDI, she killed an entire base full of people, so you have to destroy it.
The last thing the rogue VI says as you turn it off is "help", which you find out later is EDI's "birth", so to speak. Miranda tells you in ME2 that the Luna base was experimenting on controlling AI. This mission has themes of both destroy and control.
-Sovereign as an example of destroying AI.
-Saren as an example of bad synthesis.

ME2:
-Shepard's rebirth with synthetic parts as an example of good synthesis.
-Overlord as an example of bad synthesis, controlling AI, and how AI can be dangerous enough to destroy everything.
-Joker could be seen as synthesis as well, since we find out he gets upgrades that help his Vrolik's.
-Controling vs. destroying Legion i.e. do you keep him and tell him to follow your every order, or do you sell him to Cerberus? Or you could say selling him to Cerberus is an example of control as well.
-Controling vs. destroying heretic geth
-Legion vs. Tali after their respective loyalty missions
-EDI vs. Shepard (if you choose to make Shepard distrustful and combative towards EDI).
-Collector base at the end being a control vs. destroy option

ME3:

-Quarians vs. Geth...the whole Rannoch arc, really.
-EDI trying to become more organic in her thought patterns as a sort of synthesis
-Legion sacrificing himself to give the geth individuality, i.e. to become more like organics, as synthesis
-The geth uploading themselves onto quarian suits as good synthesis.
-Salarian "transhumans" as synthesis.
-Garrus's "ruthless calculus of war" as a hint for the destroy ending.
-Chakwas and Adams conversation in the mess area about whether AI is true life or merely a tool.
-TIM's blathering about how he wants to control the reapers.


Things scattered throughout all 3 games the suggest synthesis:
-biotic implants
-haptic technology implants (to use with holographic UI)
-omnitools
-quarians suits

Does anyone else have stuff to add to this list?

Modifié par fle6isnow, 08 avril 2012 - 01:26 .

[DemonRisingSun]

ChildOfEden wrote...

I have to impose some rules first:

• No shouting and no insults. This includes excessive badmouthing, vulgar speech, hate speech, and the like, it will not be tolerated and such will be reported. We will keep this a lively debate of the topic, not a hormonal ranting of your personal issues
• Stay relevant to the topic at hand
• Do not steer this thread into something it's not (ex. debate on why Retake or Bioware are better, or polls being biased, unless polls were used in regards to the topic at hand)
• To clarify the thread: this is a topic on the foreshadowing of the Mass Effect 3 endings, not an argument on why the endings were good or bad, HOWEVER, I will give leniency to those who can control themselves to dicuss their views of the endings, but no personal attacks only discussion
• And I will try to answer and reply back to as much people as possible, so do not take silence on my part as a sign of agreement or disagreement

In ME1 the ending for ME3 was foreshadowed way before anyone could have guessed.
The mission Citadel: Signal Tracking has you track down illegally funneled fundings from a Quasar machine. The tracking leads you to an AI who is trying to use the funneled money to buy a ship to reach the Geth. However, when you find it it has a safety device, which activates when it has a 100% assurance that it will be found, it explains to Shepard, if you choose to ask why you can't settle this peacefully,  that it understands that organic life must always enslave or destroy synthetic life, but that it won't die alone.
In the end you either shoot at the junction or disarm it.
The destroy and control options were clearly stated in this mission, and then so in the ME3 ending. Though the Delivery of the endiing was subpar in my opinion because the choices you make in ME2 and 3 contradict this.
Case in point the Geth themselves. After Legion's death (if you followed paragon) the Geth has achived full, lack of a better term, "humanity."
And you made peace between the Geth and Quarians. So the logic that Organics are doomed to their Synthetics is null and void.

But what do you think? Do you believe that the ME3 endings were foreshadowed by this, or was the dark energy ending foreshadowed more, but BioWare just completely retracted that all together to make such an open ended ending to milk out the series? I for one, like the direction of the endings, but completely disagree with Casey Hudson and BioWare with how they ended it (otherwise the delivery of the endings) because of the massive plot holes and contradictions. Also I wouldn't have minded seeing my Female Shepard have babies with Liara... 

No it wasn't, this is not forshadowing. I knew there would be a Catalyst that we needed but there was no forshadowing that the Catalyst could be an entity. It remains a poorly delivered plot point that bulldozes through an otherwise great story arc. A story arc that never capitalized on such great source material. That's what i think. 

[ChildOfEden]

fle6isnow wrote...

ChildOfEden wrote...

Guys I'm off at a break, my, ahem, boyfriend is back from the hospital and before he goes I need a good ravaging. When I get back I'm updating my OP, and I will answer and reply to the wonderful input everyone is putting up.

Eden, while you enjoy the..."ahem-ing"... I shall help with some of this. Sorry if I repeat stuff I already posted before; I'm just doing a memory dump here, more or less.


ME1:
-Casino AI, which you already explained. But I would add here that it is also trying a sort of synthesis--it is trying to be like organics in the sense that it wants mobility, it wants free will, and it wants a community, as seen by it trying to join the geth by uploading itself into a spaceship and flying to Geth space.
-Heretic geth as AI in conflict with organics
-Rogue Luna VI: before she was EDI, she killed an entire base full of people, so you have to destroy it.
The last thing the rogue VI says as you turn it off is "help", which you find out later is EDI's "birth", so to speak. Miranda tells you in ME2 that the Luna base was experimenting on controlling AI. This mission has themes of both destroy and control.
-Sovereign as an example of destroying AI.
-Saren as an example of bad synthesis.

ME2:
-Shepard's rebirth with synthetic parts as an example of good synthesis.
-Overlord as an example of bad synthesis, controlling AI, and how AI can be dangerous enough to destroy everything.
-Joker could be seen as synthesis as well, since we find out he gets upgrades that help his Vrolik's.
-Controling vs. destroying Legion i.e. do you keep him and tell him to follow your every order, or do you sell him to Cerberus? Or you could say selling him to Cerberus is an example of control as well.
-Controling vs. destroying heretic geth
-Legion vs. Tali after their respective loyalty missions
-EDI vs. Shepard (if you choose to make Shepard distrustful and combative towards EDI).
-Collector base at the end being a control vs. destroy option

ME3:

-Quarians vs. Geth...the whole Rannoch arc, really.
-EDI trying to become more organic in her thought patterns as a sort of synthesis
-Legion sacrificing himself to give the geth individuality, i.e. to become more like organics, as synthesis
-The geth uploading themselves onto quarian suits as good synthesis.
-Salarian "transhumans" as synthesis.
-Garrus's "ruthless calculus of war" as a hint for the destroy ending.
-Chakwas and Adams conversation in the mess area about whether AI is true life or merely a tool.
-TIM's blathering about how he wants to control the reapers.


Things scattered throughout all 3 games the suggest synthesis:
-biotic implants
-haptic technology implants (to use with holographic UI)
-omnitools
-quarians suits

Does anyone else have stuff to add to this list?

Thanks for the post!
I'll of course add some when I find something of value to add, but so far this list is the limits of my memories as well.

[Mr. C]

ChildOfEden wrote...
ME3:

-Quarians vs. Geth...the whole Rannoch arc, really.
-EDI trying to become more organic in her thought patterns as a sort of synthesis
-Legion sacrificing himself to give the geth individuality, i.e. to become more like organics, as synthesis
-The geth uploading themselves onto quarian suits as good synthesis.
-Salarian "transhumans" as synthesis.
-Garrus's "ruthless calculus of war" as a hint for the destroy ending.
-Chakwas and Adams conversation in the mess area about whether AI is true life or merely a tool.
-TIM's blathering about how he wants to control the reapers.

- The Prothean VI on Thessia all but confirming a Master AI behind the Reapers

[ChildOfEden]

Mr. C wrote...

ChildOfEden wrote...
ME3:

-Quarians vs. Geth...the whole Rannoch arc, really.
-EDI trying to become more organic in her thought patterns as a sort of synthesis
-Legion sacrificing himself to give the geth individuality, i.e. to become more like organics, as synthesis
-The geth uploading themselves onto quarian suits as good synthesis.
-Salarian "transhumans" as synthesis.
-Garrus's "ruthless calculus of war" as a hint for the destroy ending.
-Chakwas and Adams conversation in the mess area about whether AI is true life or merely a tool.
-TIM's blathering about how he wants to control the reapers.

- The Prothean VI on Thessia all but confirming a Master AI behind the Reapers

True. That still doesn't excuse bad endings unfortunately...<_<

[ChildOfEden]

[VibrantYacht]

fle6isnow wrote...

ChildOfEden wrote...

Guys I'm off at a break, my, ahem, boyfriend is back from the hospital and before he goes I need a good ravaging. When I get back I'm updating my OP, and I will answer and reply to the wonderful input everyone is putting up.

Eden, while you enjoy the..."ahem-ing"... I shall help with some of this. Sorry if I repeat stuff I already posted before; I'm just doing a memory dump here, more or less.


ME1:
-Casino AI, which you already explained. But I would add here that it is also trying a sort of synthesis--it is trying to be like organics in the sense that it wants mobility, it wants free will, and it wants a community, as seen by it trying to join the geth by uploading itself into a spaceship and flying to Geth space.
-Heretic geth as AI in conflict with organics
-Rogue Luna VI: before she was EDI, she killed an entire base full of people, so you have to destroy it.
The last thing the rogue VI says as you turn it off is "help", which you find out later is EDI's "birth", so to speak. Miranda tells you in ME2 that the Luna base was experimenting on controlling AI. This mission has themes of both destroy and control.
-Sovereign as an example of destroying AI.
-Saren as an example of bad synthesis.

ME2:
-Shepard's rebirth with synthetic parts as an example of good synthesis.
-Overlord as an example of bad synthesis, controlling AI, and how AI can be dangerous enough to destroy everything.
-Joker could be seen as synthesis as well, since we find out he gets upgrades that help his Vrolik's.
-Controling vs. destroying Legion i.e. do you keep him and tell him to follow your every order, or do you sell him to Cerberus? Or you could say selling him to Cerberus is an example of control as well.
-Controling vs. destroying heretic geth
-Legion vs. Tali after their respective loyalty missions
-EDI vs. Shepard (if you choose to make Shepard distrustful and combative towards EDI).
-Collector base at the end being a control vs. destroy option

ME3:

-Quarians vs. Geth...the whole Rannoch arc, really.
-EDI trying to become more organic in her thought patterns as a sort of synthesis
-Legion sacrificing himself to give the geth individuality, i.e. to become more like organics, as synthesis
-The geth uploading themselves onto quarian suits as good synthesis.
-Salarian "transhumans" as synthesis.
-Garrus's "ruthless calculus of war" as a hint for the destroy ending.
-Chakwas and Adams conversation in the mess area about whether AI is true life or merely a tool.
-TIM's blathering about how he wants to control the reapers.


Things scattered throughout all 3 games the suggest synthesis:
-biotic implants
-haptic technology implants (to use with holographic UI)
-omnitools
-quarians suits

Does anyone else have stuff to add to this list?

All of this seems too vague or general. It seems like you could argue this for points in anything. At the end of LOTR Frodo can choose to destroy or (attempt to) control the ring. When I make a sandwich, I can destroy (eat) it or make a puppet (control... it would be a lousy puppet) out of it. I'm not seeing what others are seeing apparently. It doesn't sound solid at all to me.

Modifié par VibrantYacht, 09 avril 2012 - 04:07 .

[fle6isnow]

Pistolols also discusses a MAJOR way the ending choices were foreshadowed that I, sadly, completely forgot all about! (I'm a bad fan... x_x). The ending choices are basically what the Quarian admirals were discussing as options for dealing with the Geth in Tali's loyalty mission.

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/10842623/1

pistolols wrote...

I just thought this was interesting...
that one admiral wanted to retake control of the geth, one wants
peaceful coexistence, and one wants to just destroy them and retake the
home planet.

Just another great parallel from the end that i love.

IIRC, Xen wanted control, Koris wanted coexistence, and Gerrel wanted to destroy.

[Beleg43]

The logic that synthetics will always destroy the organics is deeply flawed anyway. EDI is another excellent example of that, and she even gives some insight into how to properly code synthetics to avoid the issue. But anyway - if you're worried about synthetics destroying everything, why would you put them in charge of cleaning the slate? Surely the Reapers can reason out that, instead of repeating this cycle, they should instead just completely erase all organic life?

[NM_Che56]

OP, I'm with you.

I just think that people were disappointed that the ending wasn't a huge all out slug fest showing off how your war assets made a tangible difference in the battle. How does my EMS relate to star boy's giving me choices? Where is the contingency? How does my EMS affect whether I live or die in the endings given when the cinematics don't vary to show you how (e.g. fewer ships, tanks, etc. to absorb fire from Harby)?

After all this running around trying to get an intergalactic Nobel Peace Prize and amassing an army the galaxy has never seen before, it all comes down to a conversation with a AI and which path you take.

[pistolols]

I mean just the concept of 'control' in general is a major theme. They literally hammer us with examples of control over and over. Not just the reaper cycle of control itself and their indoctrination, but countless other examples of beings subjugating one another. The Thorian. The Rachni with their telepathy. The Ardat-Yakshi. The genophage. Harbinger with the Collectors. Rewriting the geth. Admiral Xen wanting to control all the geth. Edi takes control of Eva's body. Illusive man want's to control the Reapers. Then finally the Catalyst pretty much passively controling everything. It's insane. It is such a major, major theme.

With all 3 of the final choices, they seem to be showing us all through out the series that there is a flipside to every coin. It seems like Edi taking control of Eva's body is the main important example of Control taking place for a positive outcome and perhaps that is how we are supposed to relate in a positive way to Shepard taking control of the reapers.

[recentio]

Just one problem... I never played ME1.

[Tony208]

I don't agree OP, those are all small side missions that took a backseat to the character driven story.

Remember, they're optional.

Look at ME2, the whole game was about the characters and loyalty missions.

It was out of left field because it was.

Modifié par Tony208, 09 avril 2012 - 07:15 .

[fle6isnow]

Beleg43 wrote...

The logic that synthetics will always destroy the organics is deeply flawed anyway. EDI is another excellent example of that, and she even gives some insight into how to properly code synthetics to avoid the issue. But anyway - if you're worried about synthetics destroying everything, why would you put them in charge of cleaning the slate? Surely the Reapers can reason out that, instead of repeating this cycle, they should instead just completely erase all organic life?

The Reaper logic is fine, although the premises they use are flawed and therefore the conclusions are flawed as well. But that is exactly the point being made--as organics, we are supposed to hate its logic and reject it.

As for why the Reapers do not wipe out all organic life, think about what we learn in the Geth Consensus. They could have chosen to wipe out all the Quarians at the end of the Morning War so that they would be left in peace, but they didn't. Why? Because they cannot calculate the repercussions of doing so. IMO, it's the same for the Reapers. They do not know what will happen if they wipe out all organics, so they just choose to wipe out the ones that are sufficiently advanced and "ascend" them into Reaper form. To the Reapers, it's not murder or genocide--they sincerely believe they are "helping" organics by doing so.

[pistolols]

Beleg43 wrote...

The logic that synthetics will always destroy the organics is deeply flawed anyway. EDI is another excellent example of that, and she even gives some insight into how to properly code synthetics to avoid the issue. But anyway - if you're worried about synthetics destroying everything, why would you put them in charge of cleaning the slate? Surely the Reapers can reason out that, instead of repeating this cycle, they should instead just completely erase all organic life?

Would that even be possible? As in, possible for the reapers to accomplish? I mean there are literally billions of stars, right? The ME universe is actually still a very small fraction of what could be out there. And isn't organic life pretty much inevitable anyway? No matter what you do, given enough time, it's going to just come back somewhere. It would require robots much more advanced than the reapers to overtake the entire galaxy and lock down all organic life processes.

But isn't that exactly what the fear is? Isn't that precisely the catalyst' reason for the methodology behind the solution? The solution requires that the reapers guide civilizations down a path that they can maintain and manipulate.. that keeps galactic civilization technologically complacent so that it does not evolve beyond the reach of the reapers capability to administer the solution.

Modifié par pistolols, 09 avril 2012 - 08:55 .

[ChildOfEden]

Sorry if I hadn't replied to anyone as of late, unfortunately I do work, I have a near eclipsed schedule so as of right now I'd like to participate in this slice, but again life calls to me. Oh, anyone curious as to why BioWare is giving us free MP DLC? Almost exactly the same time they announced the free EC DLC?