5087 réponses à ce sujet

[Jorji Costava]

I'm hearing more crickets chirping than I'd like. I'm interpreting the relative silence as a blank check to just talk about whatever I want, but since it's late and I'm tired, I don't have anything particularly special to say. Nonetheless, let me take a stab at it.

Something that's been touched on tangentially, but (to my knowledge) hasn't been discussed at length is the thematic content of the destruction of the relays and the Normandy crash sequence, heavy-handed Adam and Eve analogy and all. Leaving aside formal questions about why Joker would be running away, Arrival, etc., there seems to be some kind of "we must go back to primitive ways" message running here. We're intended to interpret the destruction of the relays, in thematic terms, as a positive thing, because it's a fresh start, a new beginning, and all the rest.

To use a movie example, it's common for people to react negatively to films that have, or seem to have, a broadly anti-technology message on  the grounds that the filmmakers are guilty of a kind of hypocrisy--If you're really so suspicious of technology, why are you using all the fancy helicopter shots and/or 3D visual effects? The most common response by defenders of these films is to interpret the message of these movies in a narrower way: They aren't criticizing technology as such, but the interconnections between technology and the military-industrial complex, the commodification of various areas of our lives, etc.

We could follow a similar route in our interpretation of the ending. Walters & Co. don't mean to be recommending a full-blown Luddism by throwing the galaxy into a galactic dark age; rather, they are counseling against the use of technology one didn't earn (discussed upthread), or stressing the need of each species/group to make their own
future. Still, we can wonder whether or not the writers are being consistent with even this more limited message, given that they themselves did not create Unreal Engine 3, etc. (I don't mean to suggest there's anything wrong with borrowing the engine or anything else; I just want to suggest that such practices may complicate what appears to be one of the intended messages of the end).

The point of these long-winded ramblings is to set up the following questions: Suppose you want to make a game or movie which promotes X, but your very act of creating the game/movie implies you are not acting
according to X. Would this constitute an aesthetic deficiency in your work? If so, is such a deficiency present in ME3? Full disclosure: I lean towards a 'yes' answer to both questions, but am open to being persuaded otherwise.

Not sure if any of the above makes sense, but I don't think it's time for this thread to die just yet, so I've just tried to come up with the best thing I could think of. Feel free to ignore everything I wrote and treat all of the above as a glorified bump.

EDIT: Fixed paragraphs and spacing.

Modifié par osbornep, 11 juin 2012 - 05:34 .

[Fapmaster5000]

@Osbornep

I might have more thoughts in a bit, but for the moment, my only comment would be a quote I heard on the interwebs:

"If you don't like technology, don't write science fiction. If you don't like magic, don't write fantasy."

I've noticed a trend in a lot of mainstream science fiction to rage against the technology that builds it. Some of this might stem from remnants of cyberpunk (where it completely makes sense), but it's broader than that. The end of the rebooted Battlestar Galactica sent me into a rage when they flew the fleet into the sun to wipe the slate clean. ("You idiots! You won't break the cycle if you don't learn from the cycle! If you erase the technology, you'll forget what went wrong!") The anarcho-primitivism espoused by Avatar kept distracting me from the pretty sights. Lost made understanding the Island the realm of the villains, while simply worshiping the mystical properties was for the heroes. In the realm of video games, one after another has you, the player, blow out the pieces that make the setting a sci-fi setting (and often the pieces that make you 'special') in the ending.

Bonus points are awarded when you get treated to a back handed Arcadian scene, noble primitives living in peace and harmony with nature and each other, without the eeeeevil technology to drive them.

So, when this occurred at the end of Mass Effect 3 (which was a setting where I could even accept the idea of blowing up parts of the tech - tainted Reaper tech and Indoctrination and what not), and we were given the obligatory ham-fisted "OH LOOK, THEY'RE IN THE GARDEN OF EDEN NOW!", I think I threw up a little bit in my mouth.

A note to writers of all ilks: The ending-as-an-Eden-analogue is so ridiculously played out that it is as dead a trope as posting "The End" on the credits. Unless you have an utterly amazing, world-shattering, allegorical twist that will subtly imply paradise without directly slamming it into the face of anyone with an IQ higher than a paramecium, then DO NOT ATTEMPT THIS ENDING. It is on par with "It was all a dream.", "They were dead all along.", and "And then John was a zombie."

PS: If you think that you're the most awesome writer ever, and you have that genre-shattering, world-shaping twist that will allow the "We're back in Eden" ending to function, make sure you hand your draft over to the most cynical group of people you can find. (Maybe the Something Awful forums? Reddit?) If they can't make fun of it, go ahead.

PPS: They will make fun of it. You're not that good.

PPPS: This also goes for the Cancer Ending, the Baby Ending, the "Little Piece of Him to Remember" Pregnancy Ending, the "Slasher's Not Dead" Ending, and the "Oh, Sh*t, It Was Earth All Along" Ending.

PPPPS: Let's also throw in there any sudden third act appearance of a God, Preternaturally-Wise Child, Magical Token Minority, White-Light-Mass-Transit-Heaven-Analogue, of any combination of the above.

Mass Effect writers, you may notice several of these things as familiar. Take that as you will.

EDIT:  I got so wrapped up in snark that I forgot the point.  I despise the trend in Sci-Fi recently to dive into misaimed, poorly thought-out mysticism and primitivism to end previously grounded science fiction settings.  It's grating, it's insulting, and I don't know for whom it is being written.  People who read/watch/play a series about aliens, stardrives, and super-computers are probably not people who consider the computer a threatening "Technology Box" that must be crushed before we go back to hunter-gatherer societies (and commence dying to preventable diseases and other stupid factors).

Modifié par Fapmaster5000, 11 juin 2012 - 06:29 .

[Seijin8]

To start, I don't think this thread is dying any time soon. A number of the thread's "prime movers" are away at E3 and walkabout right now, so the slowing is due mainly to that. Appreciate the effort of trying to jumpstart a discussion here, so thank you for that osbornep.

I don't buy into the anti-technology concept of the ending at all. It is understandable that you would see it that way, as with many other parts of the ending, the relevant scenes are muddled in their execution, and the core message(s) of the series were sacrificed several gameplay minutes prior, so most any "theme" can be inferred by their abandonment of the previous one(s).

But, on to your questions: I really think it depends on what X is. The examples of using helo cams and 3D visual effects is a reality of Hollywood blockbusters, regardless of whatever their underlying message might be. In some ways, it may be done to further hammer the message home. There is no intrinsic need for an artist/narrator to believe deeply in the message they are sending, especially if the core of the message is asking us to simply ponder an idea.

As far as such a deficiency being present in ME3... I'd have to rummage aroound beneath the obvious piles of deficiency we've been staring at, but yeah, its probably under there somewhere. This discussion is probably more suited to a post-EC release where we may assume (probably incorrectly) that clarification will allow us to at least see their artistic intent (whether we agree with it or not).

At this point, I don't know that I really understand what they were going for, and I admit that I am predisoposed against just about anything that isn't consistent with prior thematic elements. The one overarching theme of the series I think everyone would agree on is that this is Shepard's story. The ending is not ultimately about Shepard at all, but rather the motivations and aims of the Reapers, and whatever effect the Crucible has on the Catalyst. To conclude the story of Shepard with "Shep is locked in a room with a ghost and three exits, and they all lead to doom. The End." is reprehensible on so many levels that the word "deficient" really isn't strong enough.

[Fapmaster5000]

Seijin8 wrote...

To start, I don't think this thread is dying any time soon. A number of the thread's "prime movers" are away at E3 and walkabout right now, so the slowing is due mainly to that. Appreciate the effort of trying to jumpstart a discussion here, so thank you for that osbornep.

I don't buy into the anti-technology concept of the ending at all. It is understandable that you would see it that way, as with many other parts of the ending, the relevant scenes are muddled in their execution, and the core message(s) of the series were sacrificed several gameplay minutes prior, so most any "theme" can be inferred by their abandonment of the previous one(s).

But, on to your questions: I really think it depends on what X is. The examples of using helo cams and 3D visual effects is a reality of Hollywood blockbusters, regardless of whatever their underlying message might be. In some ways, it may be done to further hammer the message home. There is no intrinsic need for an artist/narrator to believe deeply in the message they are sending, especially if the core of the message is asking us to simply ponder an idea.

As far as such a deficiency being present in ME3... I'd have to rummage aroound beneath the obvious piles of deficiency we've been staring at, but yeah, its probably under there somewhere. This discussion is probably more suited to a post-EC release where we may assume (probably incorrectly) that clarification will allow us to at least see their artistic intent (whether we agree with it or not).

At this point, I don't know that I really understand what they were going for, and I admit that I am predisoposed against just about anything that isn't consistent with prior thematic elements. The one overarching theme of the series I think everyone would agree on is that this is Shepard's story. The ending is not ultimately about Shepard at all, but rather the motivations and aims of the Reapers, and whatever effect the Crucible has on the Catalyst. To conclude the story of Shepard with "Shep is locked in a room with a ghost and three exits, and they all lead to doom. The End." is reprehensible on so many levels that the word "deficient" really isn't strong enough.

Truth. 

*Emphatic Cough*

[Seijin8]

"Emphatic cough"... tell me that isn't a bit of Turtledove in there.

And by the way, excellent post.

Modifié par Seijin8, 11 juin 2012 - 06:41 .

[Fapmaster5000]

Seijin8 wrote...

"Emphatic cough"... tell me that isn't a bit of Turtledove in there.

... would you prefer if I lied?

*Interrogative Cough*

Modifié par Fapmaster5000, 11 juin 2012 - 07:21 .

[Seijin8]

I'll leave my disdain for that particular series unmentioned.

Though, as an aside: Is there any piece of sci-fi literature involving an alien invasion where the aliens aren't utterly incompetent? I mean one where a plausible scenario allows humanity to win.

Examples of my problem:
ID4 - Interstellar space fortress uses compatible software and is open to viruses.
World War - Enemy species is utterly ridiculous in their story-imposed inability to come up with effective planning.
Mass Effect - Reapers are idiots with fundamentally flawed and inefficient methods of warfare despite a host of seemingly insurmountable advantages
David Weber's Out of the Dark - ... [self-imposed mental block won't let me recall how that one went]
Falling Skies - Inability to leverage military strength (though to be fair, this may actually fit in with the overall plot)
Batteflied Earth - BWAHAHAHAHA!!

Just once... humans win a war that isn't won by the foe's utter incompetence. I know it would be hard to write - after all, the bad guys are technologically superior and hold the high ground of the gravity well - but there must be *some* way to write a story like this. Someone must have done it.

Modifié par Seijin8, 11 juin 2012 - 08:01 .

[o Ventus]

Seijin8 wrote...

I'll leave my disdain for that particular series unmentioned.

Though, as an aside: Is there any piece of sci-fi literature involving an alien invasion where the aliens aren't utterly incompetent? I mean one where a plausible scenario allows humanity to win.

Examples of my problem:
ID4 - Interstellar space fortress uses compatible software and is open to viruses.
World War - Enemy species is utterly ridiculous in their story-imposed inability to come up with effective planning.
Mass Effect - Reapers are idiots with fundamentally flawed and inefficient methods of warfare despite a host of seemingly insurmountable advantages
David Weber's Out of the Dark - ... [self-imposed mental block won't let me recall how that one went]
Falling Skies - Inability to leverage military strength (though to be fair, this may actually fit in with the overall plot)
Batteflied Earth - BWAHAHAHAHA!!

Just once... humans win a war that isn't won by the foe's utter incompetence. I know it would be hard to write - after all, the bad guys are technologically superior and hold the high ground of the gravity well - but there must be *some* way to write a story like this. Someone must have done it.

Well, there was Independence Day, where the aliens--

Actually, no. Jeff Goldblum infected the aliens' systems on an old Apple.

[Fapmaster5000]

 @Seijin8 & @o Ventus

Agreed.  

And I fully admit that World at War is utter dreck.  It's primarily composed of beige prose followed by awkward fellatio followed by **** wanking.  Repeat ad nauseum. 

It's simply something I read as a child, so I still have fond memories of it, despite the fact that it's utterly terrible.  It's like early Star Wars fanfiction expanded universe.  You have to start somewhere, and I'm not one to hide my secret shames.

EDIT:  Really?  The forums censor the abbreviation for the National Socialist Party, even in reference to an alternative history series set in WWII.  Autocensor, y u no use context?

Modifié par Fapmaster5000, 11 juin 2012 - 08:23 .

[Seijin8]

My primary issue with WorldWar is that the essentials of the plot and concept were good, his characterizations were generally good, but there were so many throwaway, pointless characters whose only contribution to the story was to increase the page count (smells like GRR Martin). And the idiotic aliens of course.

And early Expanded universe SW was generally good. Some terrible examples in there of course, but generally good. NJO put the nail in the coffin.

[Ieldra]

Fapmaster5000 wrote...
I despise the trend in Sci-Fi recently to dive into misaimed, poorly thought-out mysticism and primitivism to end previously grounded science fiction settings.  It's grating, it's insulting, and I don't know for whom it is being written.  People who read/watch/play a series about aliens, stardrives, and super-computers are probably not people who consider the computer a threatening "Technology Box" that must be crushed before we go back to hunter-gatherer societies (and commence dying to preventable diseases and other stupid factors).

I'm glad I see this topic coming up here. I don't know how often I've ranted about "being caught in a Luddite's dream" with ME3's ending. I see it as easily the most offensive aspect of the ending, right on par with telling us synthetics and organics are doomed to enmity right after having ended a 300-year old organic/synthetic war with the most sublime scene in the whole trilogy.

It's one thing to suggest a dark age for the galaxy after a cataclysmic event. But quite another to paint this as somehow good. I'm increasingly annoyed by the technophobic tendencies of the current SF mainstream anyway, but ME3's ending pushes it beyond my tolerance threshold.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 11 juin 2012 - 08:34 .

[Seijin8]

Yes, the anti-tech sci-fi concept seems like a good discussion seed. Thanks again to osbornep!

Regarding Avatar, since Fapmaster5K mentioned it: I never took that as anti-technology per se. It seemed to me more a story of runaway corporate greed banging up against an alien ecosystem they didn't understand. Yes, it is shamanistic in nature, but good sci-fi doesn't automatically disavow such concepts. Which is not to say Avatar should win any awards for sophistication of plot

Maybe this trend in sci-fi is because - at its core - rapidly advancing technology is kinda scary. I was always tech-saavy as a kid, but at some point I lost track of the mainstream advancements. I still cannot tell you exactly wtf separates bluetooth and blackberry (half joking... well, maybe a quarter joking...). Sci-fi concepts that deal with the precursors to GRIN singularities are increasingly becoming near-term sci-fi instead of far-flung future stuff.

Hard sci-fi has got to deal with these concepts, and doing so in a non-scary way does a disservice to how world-changing near-future technologies are likely to be. The world in which we live is not something people of 250 years ago could have predicted. There is no reason to say that this will not happen again in even less time.

[Ieldra]

Seijin8 wrote...
At this point, I don't know that I really understand what they were going for, and I admit that I am predisoposed against just about anything that isn't consistent with prior thematic elements. The one overarching theme of the series I think everyone would agree on is that this is Shepard's story. The ending is not ultimately about Shepard at all, but rather the motivations and aims of the Reapers, and whatever effect the Crucible has on the Catalyst. To conclude the story of Shepard with "Shep is locked in a room with a ghost and three exits, and they all lead to doom. The End." is reprehensible on so many levels that the word "deficient" really isn't strong enough.

Hmm. Not sure what exactly you're criticizing here, but I maintain that you could see Shepard's death coming from a long way back. You could also see Shepard making a decision about the future of the galaxy.

So...no, I don't have  a problem with this "locked in a room with a ghost" scene as such, though it's obviously not exactly the best idea they ever had. My problem is that the Catalyst is set up as
some kind of divine authority. For many Shepards it is completely out of character to just
accept what it says, and I haven't even gotten to the fact that it comes across to many as a rather diabolic authority.

And wouldn't you have been disappointed if nothing of the background of the Reapers and their motivations had been revealed? I can read or play a story that ends with "I kill the bad guys" every day. I expected something more from ME3. That the exposition wasn't exactly a success is an unrelated problem.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 11 juin 2012 - 08:54 .

[Seijin8]

"And wouldn't you have been disappoined if nothing of the background of the Reapers and their motivations had been revealed?"

Nope. Sovereign told me everything I needed to know. I like the idea of aliens that are incomprehensible to us. I don't need it all spelled out for me.

As you say, the Catalyst is a major sticking point, and I definately perceive it as hostile as opposed to neutral or in any way beneficial. It is an agent of the very species that has been liquefying people and that invaded Earth. In what way is that not hostile by nature?

As far as Shepard dying - that is a separate topic from anything I posted. For the record, I expected Shepard to die, and that is fine with me.

Modifié par Seijin8, 11 juin 2012 - 08:58 .

[Ieldra]

Seijin8 wrote...
Maybe this trend in sci-fi is because - at its core - rapidly advancing technology is kinda scary. I was always tech-saavy as a kid, but at some point I lost track of the mainstream advancements. I still cannot tell you exactly wtf separates bluetooth and blackberry (half joking... well, maybe a quarter joking...). Sci-fi concepts that deal with the precursors to GRIN singularities are increasingly becoming near-term sci-fi instead of far-flung future stuff.

Hard sci-fi has got to deal with these concepts, and doing so in a non-scary way does a disservice to how world-changing near-future technologies are likely to be. The world in which we live is not something people of 250 years ago could have predicted. There is no reason to say that this will not happen again in even less time.

Scary it is, yes, but there is a difference between the message "be careful" and "be afraid".

Also, how the ME trilogy deals with the issue is.....strange. For instance this thing about using technology you haven't developed yourself. Technology exchange has been a part of human history since....well, forever, and most of the time it didn't matter where the technology came from, their good and their bad effects always manifested. The "make your own tech" approach isn't necessarily better.

Take the relays for instance. It's clear that when humanity found the prothean cache, other FTL research was cancelled or dried out from lack of financing. Losing alternatives is always unfortunate but these things happen rather naturally in normal technological development. That in this case, the relays were specifically designed to "blind civilization to alternatives" doesn't mean that using technologies you just get from somewhere is intrinsically bad. It just says you should be wary of the source of a gift. That's not a technology-related message, but one about human nature, as old as human storytelling as Homer's Ilias shows. As a message about the use of technology, it's simply false.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Seijin8 wrote...
Maybe this trend in sci-fi is because - at its core - rapidly advancing technology is kinda scary. I was always tech-saavy as a kid, but at some point I lost track of the mainstream advancements. I still cannot tell you exactly wtf separates bluetooth and blackberry (half joking... well, maybe a quarter joking...). Sci-fi concepts that deal with the precursors to GRIN singularities are increasingly becoming near-term sci-fi instead of far-flung future stuff.

Hard sci-fi has got to deal with these concepts, and doing so in a non-scary way does a disservice to how world-changing near-future technologies are likely to be. The world in which we live is not something people of 250 years ago could have predicted. There is no reason to say that this will not happen again in even less time.

Scary it is, yes, but there is a difference between the message "be careful" and "be afraid".

Also, how the ME trilogy deals with the issue is.....strange. For instance this thing about using technology you haven't developed yourself. Technology exchange has been a part of human history since....well, forever, and most of the time it didn't matter where the technology came from, their good and their bad effects always manifested. The "make your own tech" approach isn't necessarily better.

Take the relays for instance. It's clear that when humanity found the prothean cache, other FTL research was cancelled or dried out from lack of financing. Losing alternatives is always unfortunate but these things happen rather naturally in normal technological development. That in this case, the relays were specifically designed to "blind civilization to alternatives" doesn't mean that using technologies you just get from somewhere is intrinsically bad. It just says you should be wary of the source of a gift. That's not a technology-related message, but one about human nature, as old as human storytelling as Homer's Ilias shows. As a message about the use of technology, it's simply false.

No. The idea is that the reapers pass the technology in such a way that civilizations can use it, without understanding the underlying science. That means that the knowledge passed is enough to create devices from that technology and at best develop variations of those devices. If the reapers make sure that technology doesn't work anymore then obviously it not only has to sabotage the end products, it also needs to sabotage the manufacturing plants and the sources that allowed to build the plants in the first place. All that would be automatically destroyed if all the tech involved (devices, plants and source storage) are using reaper tech.

To develop similar technologies from the ground up it requires that one understands the underlying scientific principles. An advantage of that is independency. Once your own technology has been destroyed it would be relatively simple to rebuild the damaged devices, because the science won't be lost. Obviously it would make sense to protect the underlying scientific sources at all cost using unrelated technology.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 11 juin 2012 - 11:12 .

[Seijin8]

@AngryFrozenWater: You make a solid point about the manufacturing base and to what extent and destruction of technologies even effects things in the long-term, but as a fictional "science", we don't really know anything about how it works. The presumption of the series has always been that it works because of eezo, but if Eezo or its usage is fundamentally related to the Reapers in some way (don't ask me how), then the destruction of the technology may be absolute.

Now, at worst, this leaves all the Citadel races back to whatever early-space era technologies they had independently developed, which probably includes FTL. And there are surely non-Mass Effect related technologies that have continued to advance. The Asari and Salarians have 2000 years of such advancement ahead of humanity.

[Sammuthegreat]

I only just read this topic, but I enjoyed it thoroughly.

[Ieldra]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...
No. The idea is that the reapers pass the technology in such a way that civilizations can use it, without understanding the underlying science.

That would be plausible, but that's already an interpretation. What Legion actually says when that topic is touched is that the geth rejected the Reapers' offer because it wasn't their own. The lack of understanding is never mentioned as a problem. If anything, Legions' insight into the nature of the Reapers makes me question if there was such a lack of understanding in the first place.

That means that the knowledge passed is enough to create devices from that technology and at best develop variations of those devices. If the reapers make sure that technology doesn't work anymore then obviously it not only has to sabotage the end products, it also needs to sabotage the manufacturing plants and the sources that allowed to build the plants in the first place. All that would be automatically destroyed if all the tech involved (devices, plants and source storage) are using reaper tech.

You would need to have "black boxes" or secret code everywhere to make this happen. I don't think derived technology could be affected that way, because as a rule you can't derive technologies from a technological base if you don't understand it.

To develop similar technologies from the ground up it requires that one understands the underlying scientific principles. An advantage of that is independency. Once your own technology has been destroyed it would be relatively simple to rebuild the damaged devices, because the science won't be lost. Obviously it would make sense to protect the underlying scientific sources at all cost using unrelated technology.

Of course independence is an advantage. But that wasn't my point. You can't just generalize from the Reapers' example, because technology you've been gifted doesn't necessarily remain unresearched. In fact, if human history is any indication, as a rule the opposite would be true. People would research the gifted tech until they understood how it worked, even if it was only so they could profit from it. 

I agree with "It is inadvisable to indiscrimately use a technology you don't understand"
I do not agree with "It is inadvisable to indiscrimately use a technology you haven't developed yourself"

[AngryFrozenWater]

Ieldra2 wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

No. The idea is that the reapers pass the technology in such a way that civilizations can use it, without understanding the underlying science.

That would be plausible, but that's already an interpretation. What Legion actually says when that topic is touched is that the geth rejected the Reapers' offer because it wasn't their own. The lack of understanding is never mentioned as a problem. If anything, Legions' insight into the nature of the Reapers makes me question if there was such a lack of understanding in the first place.

That means that the knowledge passed is enough to create devices from that technology and at best develop variations of those devices. If the reapers make sure that technology doesn't work anymore then obviously it not only has to sabotage the end products, it also needs to sabotage the manufacturing plants and the sources that allowed to build the plants in the first place. All that would be automatically destroyed if all the tech involved (devices, plants and source storage) are using reaper tech.

You would need to have "black boxes" or secret code everywhere to make this happen. I don't think derived technology could be affected that way, because as a rule you can't derive technologies from a technological base if you don't understand it.

To develop similar technologies from the ground up it requires that one understands the underlying scientific principles. An advantage of that is independency. Once your own technology has been destroyed it would be relatively simple to rebuild the damaged devices, because the science won't be lost. Obviously it would make sense to protect the underlying scientific sources at all cost using unrelated technology.

Of course independence is an advantage. But that wasn't my point. You can't just generalize from the Reapers' example, because technology you've been gifted doesn't necessarily remain unresearched. In fact, if human history is any indication, as a rule the opposite would be true. People would research the gifted tech until they understood how it worked, even if it was only so they could profit from it. 

I agree with "It is inadvisable to indiscrimately use a technology you don't understand"
I do not agree with "It is inadvisable to indiscrimately use a technology you haven't developed yourself"

That first line is already an interpretation? Or do you mean it is not your interpretation? Developing civilizations along the paths the reapers desire by dropping tech here and there does not leave much room to play with. What the reapers certainly do not want is to develop technology which would give "us" an advantage. After all they are out their to destroy that civilization.

It has nothing to do with secret codes or black boxes. Someone can work on an assembly line to produce a product which he or she doesn't understand. One can design a computer without having any intimate knowledge about what electrons exactly are.

Independence is not your point. But it is mine. It is key to understanding why this is important in the point I made in that last paragraph. It all has to do with the right of self-determination and choosing your own path. Even the geth understood that in ME2.

Because we do not have that independence and we do not have science similar to that of the reapers we are thrown back to the stone age once the technology and its scientific sources are destroyed. And thus it is inadvisable to use it as is: We do not have a backup.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 11 juin 2012 - 01:49 .

[Fapmaster5000]

It's good to see this thread so lively, but let's make sure we keep the heat dialed to 85% or lower. It's getting a little warm in here.

@Ieldra2 & @AngryFrozenWater

I can see both sides of this. This really comes down to the manufacture of the components of Eezo drives. Did we (galactic civilization) build the things from a standard template, or did we construct them exactly from that template, including an aforementioned black box that is absolutely vital, but is not understood in the slightest. I think the best way would be to find out if there's anything in the Codex's about near-mystical drive parts that must be assembled exactly as directed, with no deviation for drives to function, but whose origin (assumed Prothean) is nearly unknowable.

That right there would tell us whether the drive cores are like giving computers to the Victorian Age (they'd know what they are, and could probably figure them out, given time), or the Stone Age (magic box!).

On the other hand, as Seijin8 mentioned, if Eezo itself is the Black Box, being a Reaper designed artificial element seeded into the galaxy, and that big magical beam at the end was blowing the Eezo right out of the galaxy... well, that would just about do it. It would explain why the relays blew, why the Normandy's core blew, and why all technology (drive technology) would be destroyed. It also opens a can of worms about exploding biotics, but that's a whole 'nother topic.

Modifié par Fapmaster5000, 11 juin 2012 - 05:02 .

[delta_vee]

I have one thing to say to every permutation of the Arcadian/Edenic new beginning:

WAAAAAAAGH!

Ahem.

@osbornep

I'd agree that the relay destruction (coupled with the anti-synthetic tendencies of Starkid et al) indicates some level of anti-technological bias. The specific degree is up for debate (mostly dependent on how much technology gets destroyed with the Red Tube of Doom), but I'd say the idea is definitely there. I suspect the intention was more along the lines of breaking the chains imposed upon us - which is certainly how a number of people have interpreted it. I can't agree with that view, though. I'm with Ieldra2:

It's one thing to suggest a dark age for the galaxy after a cataclysmic event. But quite another to paint this as somehow good. I'm increasingly annoyed by the technophobic tendencies of the current SF mainstream anyway, but ME3's ending pushes it beyond my tolerance threshold.

A dark age is a Bad Thing. A new beginning usually means the world we know is destroyed. In the case of Mass Effect, outside of that one line of Sovereign's, the relay network is what makes the whole setting possible - and since we've become rather fond of the setting over three games, we haven't developed any sense whatsoever that everything needs to be torn down and built anew. That idea - of the old world being corrupt, unsalvageable, irredeemable, or otherwise so deeply flawed that it should not, must not be allowed to stand - is a prerequisite to conceding to the eschatological impulse so frequent in speculative fiction. (Here we could insert an entire discussion of the religious and cultural origins of same, but that's a dissertation in itself which I'm sure has already been written, repeatedly.) Perhaps I speak only for myself, here, but I have grown to loathe that apocalyptic tendency - not that I reject any portrayal of recovery from cataclysm, but I object so very strenuously to belief that such a disaster is in any way something to be embraced, even hastened.

@Seijin8

Maybe this trend in sci-fi is because - at its core - rapidly advancing technology is kinda scary. I was always tech-saavy as a kid, but at some point I lost track of the mainstream advancements. I still cannot tell you exactly wtf separates bluetooth and blackberry (half joking... well, maybe a quarter joking...). Sci-fi concepts that deal with the precursors to GRIN singularities are increasingly becoming near-term sci-fi instead of far-flung future stuff.

Please don't take this as any sort of personal rebuke, Seijin, but I don't think the pace of technological change in our current era is anywhere close to "rapid". Compare to, say, the period of 1860-1969, where we go in with muskets and horses and come out with nukes and moon rockets, with a complete overhaul of our entire scientific and mathematical knowledge in between. We've already had that rapid change. We survived. Knowing the feature list of the latest version of iOS pales in comparison. I find most talk of the relentless pace of change in the Internet Age to be hollow and hyperbolic in equal measure.

@AngryFrozenWater

No. The idea is that the reapers pass the technology in such a way that civilizations can use it, without understanding the underlying science. That means that the knowledge passed is enough to create devices from that technology and at best develop variations of those devices. If the reapers make sure that technology doesn't work anymore then obviously it not only has to sabotage the end products, it also needs to sabotage the manufacturing plants and the sources that allowed to build the plants in the first place. All that would be automatically destroyed if all the tech involved (devices, plants and source storage) are using reaper tech.

Thing is, I think that idea of the relays and their derived technology being nothing but a trap (and the corollary of the necessity of the relays' destruction) betrays a lack of understanding of technological progress. (Frankly, all writers attempting science fiction should be first hogtied and forced to attend a class in the history of science. I'm being only slightly hyperbolic here. It drives me up the gorram wall.) As Fapmaster5000 points out, there would have to be some component of mass effect technologies which every species has merely copied instead of understood - and we are given no such indication. In fact, we're shown the opposite, where eezo-derived technologies are fairly well-understood (there may or may not be a Grand Unified Theory, but it wouldn't be the first time in human history where the limits of engineering outreach those of theory), and used in as many ways as the various species can think of. The relays themselves merely pointed the way towards element zero and its implications, instead of being a blackbox collection of technologies reminiscent of the Standard Template Constructs of 40K, inscrutable and unreproduceable.

Granted, the relays are beyond the galaxy's ability to construct, but I think it's open for debate as to whether it's a matter of technological limitation (which, as the Protheans showed with the Conduit, could be overcome) or a matter of resources (gathering the requisite amount of eezo to construct a relay seems beyond the galaxy for the near future). I think a lot of people have drawn conclusions about technological progress from that infamous line of Sovereign's which are incautious extrapolations; the more supportable idea is (IMO of course) that the "paths we desire" are more physical in nature - planets remain near the relays, the network makes interdependence both easy and nearly inevitable, et cetera.

As for the matter of "alternatives" for the relays, I think this is a misapprehension fueled by the all-too-common trope in space opera of a cornucopia of propulsion types working on differing principles. This is not reflective of how technology works, by and large. Take aircraft, for example: there are propeller engines and jet engines and ramjets, all with different price/performance/efficiency curves, but they all operate on the same principle: moving air out the back end. In ME, Element Zero is the means of producing antigravity effects, which can then be used for FTL travel. Using another design apart from the relay-derived one wouldn't change the principle, nor does the principle itself belong to the Reapers alone.

Modifié par delta_vee, 11 juin 2012 - 05:37 .

[Fapmaster5000]

delta_vee wrote...

I have one thing to say to every permutation of the Arcadian/Edenic new beginning:

WAAAAAAAGH!

Ahem.

I think that is the most eloquent and appropriate response I've ever encountered.

delta_vee wrote...


-reluctant snip-

I think you've nailed it.  The "burn it all down!" ending requires a firm establishment of inherent corruption and vileness in the system.  There needs to be a vile empire, wallowing in depravity while the Good People ™ starve/are-killed-by-violence.  There needs to be stagnation, and enough room to build an allegorical "forrest must be burned down to save it" moment, complete with the last man who believes in the regime standing amid the burning Capitol, between melting banners and fire licking up the marble columns, staring blankly ahead with a single tear, and then mouthing something like, "... but we wanted more!" before being crushed under a karmic piece of marble.

We distinctly didn't get this in Mass Effect.  Sure, in ME2, there were some pushes towards the galactic stagnation, plus crap lives in the Terminus Systems, but never so much a direct indication that "the relays did this" as simply a "this is a bad part of town where law hasn't yet reached".

We didn't even get the prophetic character in the final act of ME3, shouting about, "It always ends like this!  Stagnation!  The Asari needed the Salarians, needed the Krogan, needed the Turians, needed the humans!  The relays kill you!  They break your will, slow you down, make you into Reaper chow!  We need to wake up!"  There was none of that, so I have to believe that this was either not the intent, or simply delivered with a storytelling hatchet job.

[drayfish]

Howdy, Howdy, Howdy everybody.
 
I missed you all, and was delighted to see that I had so much lovely discussion to catch back up on with my return. Although, I can only imagine what it must be like for people to stumble across this thread from the beginning and get captivated reading everyone's posts. You sit twitching, desperate to add to the debate, ticked off and thrilled in equal measure to see people voicing what you wished you had said as it goes along. Great stuff.
 
 
Firstly, forgive me as I become thoroughly self-indulgent and dip quickly back into some of the subjects I'm sad to have missed:
 
So, I've been gone for a few days, having left, it seems, with some very kind and very droll gags about how ominous, and frankly lethal, my country is... And yes, as frypan can attest, on the whole Australia is, as was suggested a few pages back, big and weird and scary. We have large snakes, angry spiders, ferocious crocodiles, feisty red kangaroos, relatively ambivalent dingoes, and at least one feral possum that attacked me as a child (and whom I will one day have my revenge upon: I'm coming for you, Mr McBitey. One day...) But it also has a further unique feature, one that stings my indoor, pampered lifestyle far more egregiously than the posttraumatic memory of a certain sociopathic possum leaping out at me from the dark: we have shockingly overpriced games. I think that's why the whole day-one DLC issues struck us down here particularly poorly. We are already paying – prepare for theatrical gasp – $100 for a new release game (which currently exchanges out to be roughly the same price in US dollars). Add to that then the extra cost of additional DLCs and things feel a little excessive. I paid $120 for my ME: Collector's Edition (which was cheaper than anywhere else that I came to see it), and although I was happy to pay it for a franchise and company that I believed in, I couldn't help but feel a little sad for those who were missing out on a character that was clearly in the original design documents of the game. 
 
(And DLC is particularly sneaky in general down here, since it's not as if X-Box live and Playstation can use the (completely, shamelessly falsified) excuse that the price hike is to do with shipping across the globe, which I recall was an excuse once bandied about to justify our exorbitant prices years back).
 
Obviously this is all more to do with industry wide price gauging on our end, and less to do with Bioware specifically, but I reserve the right (as I always do) to be unjustly infuriated with the world for my most minor inconvenience. (...Oh, so I've got to peel off the metal lid before I microwave the soup now? Come on!?!)
 
And much like many others here, I still have some concerns over the choice of cut. Because, really: the Prothean?! The guy you've been hinting at for three games now? The guy whose people named the Reapers? Whose warnings have been rattling around in Shepard's head since the first mission of the first game? Who were mutilated into the Collectors and who are central to the reveal about the advancement of the whole Asari race this cycle? Who fills out the cool new aliens quota for squad mates, and who is fairly central to at least Liara's character arc this time around? That guy? ...But Allers stays? ...'Kay.  (Indeed, I was shocked to see how many reviewers seemed to have played the game without Javik and his unique perspective on the universe...)
 
I do want to add to the thanks to CulturalGeekGirl for giving some insider industry perspective on the whole DLC thing though. My (shamefully specific) whinging aside, I can see how individualised transactions help boost revenue in a less fluid and inflated pricing structure, but over here in the wilds things already seem slippery enough. Although having said that I would certainly prefer to have DLC be fully integrated into the game experience as it was here rather than awkwardly attached to the narrative structure with thumbtacks.
 
 
Likewise, as someone who has never played the MP (yes, I utilised that weird little i-Pad app: part tediously score builder; part wonderful codex), I must admit to not being entirely convinced by the way that it was integrated, and being thoroughly underwhelmed by the EMS degradation. I'm not an MP-hater by any means; it's just never anything that I've personally longed for in the Mass Effect experience, and my complete lack of team coordination pretty much sealed the deal (I'm the guy who runs off alone and gets shot in the head). Much like JadedLibertine, I never got into GTA4 or Red Dead Redemption's MP. But I must say I was swept away (in all of the ways that aren't a Madonna movie) by Fapmaster5000's MP missions. Fordamn. Missions like that could definitely drag my incompetent griefing ass into the multiplayer lobbies...  Or (more likely) have me furiously cursing out the shameful pings on my internet connection.
 
(Speaking of which, I just want to reiterate: if this thread ever does pool together and create a videogame, I will buy any damn thing it sells. The game-design, narratives, characters, and themes being casually bandied about in discussion here blows my mind.)

Modifié par drayfish, 11 juin 2012 - 11:08 .

[drayfish]

In theory I don't mind the notion of evolving past the Mass Effect Relays. They were, after all, an essential part of the Reaper's trap (I say that because the game insists that they are, not because I understand at all what that plan was meant to be). The Citadel, the Mass Relays, all were part of a Reaper effort to wrangle and exterminate the human race, so I quite like the idea of our subverting them, or discarding them, or having some agency that proves we have moved beyond the hapless victim stage of this cosmic dynamic.
 
At present the Mass Relay network seems to function like that board game Mouse Trap, where we realise in the last few moments of play, 'Yee Gads! We're the mouse!' But considering that we had that exact moment in the first game when Vigil spilled the whole Admiral-Akbar-catch-phrase, the only major difference that seems to have been offered by the end of Mass Effect 3 is that in realising our position we are now allowed (or rather compelled) to blow it all up. The boot kicks the bucket, the ball bearing rolls down the rickety stairs, the little diving man jumps, but before the basket tumbles down we tip the board onto the floor and scatter it to pieces. 
 
This is certainly a valid response (and honestly, usually how my attempts to play Mouse Trap would end; that goddamn diver never went in the tub!) but it seems a little simplistic. It would have been nice, after being the victims of this technology, being hapless, ignorant stooges in a galactic snare (thanks Ieldra2 for that fantastic Trojan Horse reference), to have finally proved ourselves capable of harnessing, and ultimately controlling, this contentious symbol of the franchise. We've been riding across the galaxy on the back of these objects, ignorantly not comprehending the doom that they represented for us in the end; I would have loved for us to finally earn the right to use them. I suspect that this was the idea of the Crucible – a way of repurposing and re-engineering the Citadel, to hoist the Reapers on their own petard (or whatever that phrase is...) But currently the Relays must be sacrificed at this moment of awakening, forcing us to blow everything to hell – even in the Synthesise and Control endings, which seems particularly needless. 
 
I do like (in general) the idea of sloughing off the old order in an effort to embrace the new; I'm just not sure that it is necessary to reduce technology to ash in order to preserve that metaphor. We've spent three games now saying 'derp-derp-eezo', so it would be nice to have our Archimedes revelatory 'Ah ha!' here at the end. In claiming an understanding of the science we would break the Reaper's hold over us and earn our place in the galactic stage, without having that crippling sensation of being doomed, scattered to the stratosphere with no conceivable way to help ourselves for generations. All for an Eden reference that seems a little trite at best.
 
...But that's from a guy who – gun to my head – couldn't tell you how a DVR works, so accept my technothieveia for what it is.