207 réponses à ce sujet

[Filanwizard]

that is true about how we end up viewing synthetics. However I would still not feel bad about killing all the reapers because if it where organics doing the same thing to Earth I would be just as happy to wipe em all out. War is War, weather the ship is staffed by people or is a giant sentient killbot.

[oracle343gspark]

They're being "artistic." Being stupid is the new smart, and making fans angry is really pleasing them. It all goes back to Bioware's amazing plan to not make money.

Modifié par oracle343gspark, 14 avril 2012 - 10:16 .

[XTR3M3]

be careful not to fall into a plot hole while examining plot holes in the ending. they are absolutely everywhere.

....just a friendly service announcement....

[Gwtheyrn]

Leafs43 wrote...

Mademon wrote...

They didn't necessarily write the game in order, and I thought it was confirmed two people wrote the ending while a full team wrote the game? That doesn't have to be true, but if so, poor communication?

But if the whole team wrote rannoch and the geth story line, that means whoever wrote the ending would at least be privy to that info writing the ending wouldn't they?

I mean we can almost assume the ending came last because it seemed rushed.  So Rannnoch and it's storyline was developed first.



So did Mac and Casey both have a brain fart?

That's as good an explanation as anything I've heard so far.

[YouHaveAProblem]

 I think it's pretty obvious that they were writing som kind of epic conclusion like IT, or maybe something entirely different, but then ran out of time/budget. 

[Evil Minion]

[quote]The Night Mammoth wrote...

[quote]Evil Minion wrote...


Where did I say the goal of "rogue AIs" in ME2 was to "destroy all organic life?"[/quote]

You didn't. The Reapers did. You said there was sufficient content to back that up.[/quote]

There is. The fact that you don't think the evidence is sufficient doesn't "prove" the Reapers wrong.

[quote]What you're doing is called "attacking a strawman."

And, do you honestly believe that there must be a "rogue AI" whose mission is to "destroy all organic life" for the Reapers to be correct? There doesn't.[/quote]

No. There was to be one to foreshadow the finale.[/quote]

No there wasn't, nor does there need to be.

[quote]

[quote]In ME2, you blow away "rogue AIs" left and right. You are given evidence of AIs behaving badly. You are given evidence of AIs behaving well.  You make up your own mind as to whether the Reapers are correct.[/quote]

You aren't given evidence to suggest that the goal of synthetic life is to eventually wipe out organic life. Hence wht the ending is out of place, because the game does not support it.[/quote]

The ending is supported by the game.

There is more than enough evidence of conflict between synthetics and organics.

There does not need to be an AI who wishes to "destroy all organic life" for the Reapers to be justified in their logic.







[/quote]
[/quote]

[Leafs43]

Evil Minion wrote...

The ending is supported by the game.

There is more than enough evidence of conflict between synthetics and organics.

There does not need to be an AI who wishes to "destroy all organic life" for the Reapers to be justified in their logic.

lol, no.

Just stop.

[Evil Minion]

Leafs43 wrote...

Evil Minion wrote...

The ending is supported by the game.

There is more than enough evidence of conflict between synthetics and organics.

There does not need to be an AI who wishes to "destroy all organic life" for the Reapers to be justified in their logic.

lol, no.

Just stop.

I'm convinced by your superior debating skills.

Not.

[The Night Mammoth]

Evil Minion wrote...

There is. The fact that you don't think the evidence is sufficient doesn't "prove" the Reapers wrong.

I'm not trying to prove the Reapers wrong, or right. 

All I'm saying is that the story does not support its conclusion in the mind of the player. There's a lot to throw ambiguity over the Reaper's motivations, and very little if anything to prove that is a legitimate problem they were created to solve. 

No there wasn't, nor does there need to be.

So, your saying a story doesn't need to support its finale. 

I suppose it would be alright for the Crucible to unfold to reveal a giant Roger Moore who can charm the Reapers into leaving the galaxy then. 

The ending is supported by the game.

There is more than enough evidence of conflict between synthetics and organics.

Conflict, yes, I don't dispute that. 

There does not need to be an AI who wishes to "destroy all organic life" for the Reapers to be justified in their logic.

In the game there does, else it ceases to be a convincing plot direction. There's some conflict between synthetics and organics, less because of them being synthetic and organic, less that has the synthetic maliciously hostile toward organics because of that, and nothing that I'm aware of that has synthetics wanting to wipe out all organic life as their motive. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 14 avril 2012 - 11:16 .

[Leafs43]

Evil Minion wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

Evil Minion wrote...

The ending is supported by the game.

There is more than enough evidence of conflict between synthetics and organics.

There does not need to be an AI who wishes to "destroy all organic life" for the Reapers to be justified in their logic.

lol, no.

Just stop.

I'm convinced by your superior debating skills.

Not.

The only plot line of organics vs synthetics was quarians vs geth, and that was resolved peacefully.

Organics vs synthetics is not the major plot line and is not supported in the game.


so lol, no.

Just stop.

[Evil Minion]

I'm not trying to prove the Reapers wrong, or right.

All I'm saying is that the story does not support its conclusion in the mind of the player. There's a lot to throw ambiguity over the Reaper's motivations, and very little if anything to prove that is a legitimate problem they were created to solve.

And I suspect that the ambiguity was intentional.

You're absolutely right. There was nothing in the game that definitively demonstrated that synthetics would "definitely" attempt to wipe out organic life.

However, wasn't "moral ambiguity" kinda the point? If the writers gave a definite answer to the Reaper question, wouldn't that ultimately take away from the "choice" you had to make?

Personally, I don't care if the Reapers were correct or not. I don't think it's right for one species to dominate and control the evolutionary path of another, which is also why I cured the Genophage, released the Rachni queen, ect. Oh, and I believe Synthetics v. Organics was just one aspect of the overall problem facing the galaxy, not necessarily THE problem.

Modifié par Evil Minion, 14 avril 2012 - 11:26 .

[Evil Minion]

Leafs43 wrote...

Evil Minion wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

Evil Minion wrote...

The ending is supported by the game.

There is more than enough evidence of conflict between synthetics and organics.

There does not need to be an AI who wishes to "destroy all organic life" for the Reapers to be justified in their logic.

lol, no.

Just stop.

I'm convinced by your superior debating skills.

Not.

The only plot line of organics vs synthetics was quarians vs geth, and that was resolved peacefully.

Organics vs synthetics is not the major plot line and is not supported in the game.


so lol, no.

Just stop.

Well, golly, if you say so, it must be true.

I stand corrected.

Not.

[Turkeysock]

It wasn't the writers, it was Mac Walters and Casey Hudson who wrote the endings. I highly doubt the ending would've passed peer review by folks like Weekes.

[Evil Minion]

Turkeysock wrote...

It wasn't the writers, it was Mac Walters and Casey Hudson who wrote the endings. I highly doubt the ending would've passed peer review by folks like Weekes.

It definately has a "rough draft" feel.

[warrior256]

Technically it's not a contradiction in that it only proves that the spacebrat is an idiot.It doesn't invalidate the whole concept behind the geth. However it is also a contradiction in that I get the feeling we are supposed to believe everything the Spacebrat says is truth. If you believe he is telling the truth then it is a contradiction, if you do not then it isn't.

[PistolPete7556]

They were probably written by different people

[Delta_V2]

Evil Minion wrote...

And I suspect that the ambiguity was intentional.

You're absolutely right. There was nothing in the game that definitively demonstrated that synthetics would "definitely" attempt to wipe out organic life.

However, wasn't "moral ambiguity" kinda the point? If the writers gave a definite answer to the Reaper question, wouldn't that ultimately take away from the "choice" you had to make?

Personally, I don't care if the Reapers were correct or not. I don't think it's right for one species to dominate and control the evolutionary path of another, which is also why I cured the Genophage, released the Rachni queen, ect. Oh, and I believe Synthetics v. Organics was just one aspect of the overall problem facing the galaxy, not necessarily THE problem.

The problem is we aren't given a chance in-game to disagree with the Starchild's logic.  It is presented as an existential truth, but no evidence is provided to support it.  We can debate it outside the game, but in-game, we are forced to go along with the Starchild and pick one of his pallette-swapped endings.

If we were given a dialogue option to call 'bulls***', things would be a little different.

[Evil Minion]

warrior256 wrote...

Technically it's not a contradiction in that it only proves that the spacebrat is an idiot.It doesn't invalidate the whole concept behind the geth. However it is also a contradiction in that I get the feeling we are supposed to believe everything the Spacebrat says is truth. If you believe he is telling the truth then it is a contradiction, if you do not then it isn't.

True.

But I respectfully disagree that we were "supposed" to believe Ghostdweeb.

Modifié par Evil Minion, 14 avril 2012 - 11:36 .

[Evil Minion]

Delta_V2 wrote...

Evil Minion wrote...

And I suspect that the ambiguity was intentional.

You're absolutely right. There was nothing in the game that definitively demonstrated that synthetics would "definitely" attempt to wipe out organic life.

However, wasn't "moral ambiguity" kinda the point? If the writers gave a definite answer to the Reaper question, wouldn't that ultimately take away from the "choice" you had to make?

Personally, I don't care if the Reapers were correct or not. I don't think it's right for one species to dominate and control the evolutionary path of another, which is also why I cured the Genophage, released the Rachni queen, ect. Oh, and I believe Synthetics v. Organics was just one aspect of the overall problem facing the galaxy, not necessarily THE problem.

The problem is we aren't given a chance in-game to disagree with the Starchild's logic.  It is presented as an existential truth, but no evidence is provided to support it.  We can debate it outside the game, but in-game, we are forced to go along with the Starchild and pick one of his pallette-swapped endings.

If we were given a dialogue option to call 'bulls***', things would be a little different.

No argument there.

Shep clearly debates the Reapers at other points in the game. He should've been given better dialog options with Ghostdweeb (which were there, but later removed).

We were left to assume waaaayy too much in an effort to make the ending seem "deep."

[Bat32391]

I stopped believing a word that little holographic space turd told me when I saw Edi jump out of the Normandy in the destroy "ending".

[The Night Mammoth]

[quote]Evil Minion wrote...

[quote]I'm not trying to prove the Reapers wrong, or right.

All I'm saying is that the story does not support its conclusion in the mind of the player. There's a lot to throw ambiguity over the Reaper's motivations, and very little if anything to prove that is a legitimate problem they were created to solve.[/quote]

And I suspect that the ambiguity was intentional.

You're absolutely right. There was nothing in the game that definitively demonstrated that synthetics would "definitely" attempt to wipe out organic life. 

However, wasn't "moral ambiguity" kinda the point? If the writers gave a definite answer to the Reaper question, wouldn't that ultimately take away from the "choice" you had to make?[/quote]

Without going into why I think even the choice part is bad, yeah I kind of agree. 

However, I think it would have been better achieved if there was an example, a major example, of some form of synthetic which expresses the motive of wiping out all organic life. That I think would better explain their intentions. They already have the 'good' side of synthetics with the Geth and EDI, all they need is one really important example to contrast. 

[quote]Personally, I don't care if the Reapers were correct or not. I don't think it's right for one species to dominate and control the evolutionary path of another, which is also why I cured the Genophage, released the Rachni queen, ect. [/quote]

I wouldn't normally care if the final choice didn't revolve round it. If the writers had just mentioned it at the end in a Vigil-like conversation and it made sense, I'd have probably gone 'aaaaah, that's why" and then promptly ask another question and move on. They place too much importance in a question that didn't, in my view, need to be answered. If they wanted speculation, they already have the perfect opportunity. 

[quote]Oh, and I believe Synthetics v. Organics was just one aspect of the overall problem facing the galaxy, not necessarily THE problem.[/quote]

Genuinely interested, what did you think the problem was? 





[/quote]

[Meltemph]

Evil Minion wrote...

warrior256 wrote...

Technically it's not a contradiction in that it only proves that the spacebrat is an idiot.It doesn't invalidate the whole concept behind the geth. However it is also a contradiction in that I get the feeling we are supposed to believe everything the Spacebrat says is truth. If you believe he is telling the truth then it is a contradiction, if you do not then it isn't.

True.

But I respectfully disagree that we were "supposed" to believe Ghostdweeb.

And this is where I disagree.  I think the starchild is the embodiement of a certain writer showing his arrogance and wanting to finish the game himselfl, the starchild is clearly an info dump.  That said, it will be very easy to write around it and say "no it wasnt an info dunmp it was a troll".

[Meltemph]

The ending is supported by the game.

There is more than enough evidence of conflict between synthetics and organics.

There does not need to be an AI who wishes to "destroy all organic life" for the Reapers to be justified in their logic.

Yes there does need to be an AI who wants to do this, otherwise he is assuming. There has to have been a time where there was an AI every cycle to prove his theory, and the AI would have to win.

Even ignoring how impossible it would be for the exact same things to happen with every life form the idea's behind the choices of that ending and the inference of those choices... I started face-palming the 1st time they tried to insinuate this in ME3, but just told myself that it has to be the reapers that were causing this, since I couldnt comprehend someone actually writing this and thinking it was smart.

A cycle of organics creating the same type of synthetics that will hit the same goal and achieve that goal is just insane. Evolution doesnt work that way, not every organic is goign to think like us and vise versa.

Clearly the writer of the game was arrogant enough to think he had the universe figured out. The amount of "kid gloves" applied to the ending and evolution of the game to try and make any feasible sense is asinine.

If it wasn't for the 3 choices we were given I would say that there is a high chance that the concepts the starbrat was preaching were "opinions" of a broken child, but those endings fit so well with the starchilds explanations, that it is hard to ignore.

I realize it is scifi and the impossible becomes the possible...but to the degree they went with it made it very "Michael Bay" like where it wasnt about making sense at all, but trying to force people to "feel" something.

[Evil Minion]

Without going into why I think even the choice part is bad, yeah I kind of agree.
However, I think it would have been better achieved if there was an example, a major example, of some form of synthetic which expresses the motive of wiping out all organic life. That I think would better explain their intentions. They already have the 'good' side of synthetics with the Geth and EDI, all they need is one really important example to contrast.

Well, Javik "sorta" gives an example, but it was pretty weak.

I agree that a really good example of hostile synthetics would've made the Reapers (and the eventual choice we have to make) much more potent.

As for what I think the "real" problem was, I couldn't help but notice that there were many organic races that were using exactly the same "logic" as the Reapers ("We need to dominate and control this other species for their own good because we're more advanced and know better.").

It's one of the reasons I think the Reapers were actually invented by organics at some point and were using the flawed, emotional reasoning of organics.It comes down to whether you believe it's "okay" to try and dominate other species "for their own good.

It also makes most organic species hypocrites.

[DocJill]

Contradiction is art.