5087 réponses à ce sujet

[KitaSaturnyne]

@drayfish

"Starby" has to be the most awesome name you've come up with him so far. Absolutely genius!

Now when I picture him, after my diatribes earlier today, I envision the entire Mass Effect universe crumbling around him like stone pillars in an ancient Greek earthquake. That is what the damn thing's reduced Mass Effect to, in my mind. Junkyard dogs and crumbling pillars.

Who would want to go back to the trilogy, despite the awesome quality of the first two games, and relive all of that? No one. Hence, we've not returned to the universe since it came crashing down around us.

EDIT: Oh, bloody hell in a handbasket with a side of Doritos. Let's do the Juicy Fruit commercial jingle from the 80's.

Modifié par KitaSaturnyne, 24 juin 2012 - 04:55 .

[edisnooM]

Phew, went away for a few hours and came back with a bunch of good stuff to read.

@Erixxxx

In the Final Hours app, Hudson said that he didn't want to do anything post-Shepard, and that anything they do will likely take place before or during ME3.



And I'll throw my hat in with hating the Catalyst, though at this point it's sort of like saying that I also breath in a mixture of nitrogen and oxygen to survive.

The thing that really gets me about glow-boy is that through all three (or maybe 2.99) games the Reapers are the enemy, we're supposed to stop them. Even to the point that in ME1 they added the Dragons Teeth because they needed to make the Geth more evil and sinister, they needed to be sure we would see them as the bad guys.

We are shown the Reapers as true villains committing villainous deeds with much hand wringing and evil chuckles. Even in ME3 we're shown them burning Earth, Palaven, Thessia, turning people into Husks, Cannibals, Marauders, and Brutes especially which are some sort of twisted combination of Krogan and Turian. And the whole Ardat Yakshi mission really didn't do much to endear the Reapers to me.

But then, final minutes of the game and: Bam! Man (or boy) behind the curtain, the puppeteer, ringleader etc. And get this, all that stuff they did? It was for us. See they're really trying to save us, but we keep getting in their way, with our cumbersome freewill and all. But no worries, we mucked up this solution but we can choose a shiny new one, it's all good.

I mean how did BioWare think this would play out? That we would be fine with the leader of the enemy we've fought for three games suddenly popping up out of the blue and changing the entire premise of the story?

Of course we hate the Catalyst, he represents everything we were supposed to hate for 2.99 games, it's like if Palpatine was suddenly trying act like the good guy just before Vader tossed him into the Core.

[JeosDinas]

 Barring the fact that I don't really give two flips of a coin who the hell your lit professor is, I don't agree with the thematic analysis of most of the endings you've put forth. At least Destroy and Synthesis. Control is certainly the most thematically inconsistent ending choice since you spend most of the game dissuading one of the main antagonists from this course of action. It can only be seen as thematically affirming if you choose to see the narrative as one about Shepard's strength of will. But I don't think that's the case.

Destroy, thematically, is the choice of uncompromised ideals. It is about loss and sacrifice, major themes in the trilogy. This is somewhat undermined if you have an ending if Shepard lives, however. But on face value, Destroy has thematic appeal because it is the choice of unwavering resolve. 

Synthesis, meanwhile, is narratively much more complete and all encompassing. And it has the benefit of reaffirming one of the major messages of the games which is the debate over what constitues life. This is a major theme in the third game particularly. Rannoch is a crucible which resolves entirely around this question. The growing relationship of EDI and Joker since ME2 also brings it to the forefront of the game's themes. And Synthesis is, by and large, a choice which affirms this. It is the path of life. Of transformation. It does not place one form of life over another (as either the Destroy or Control endings do) and embraces all life as life. That is also happens to be a rather large rejection of the Catalyst's suppositions is also important. It says "We can and will enter a new age together. As individuals who are united and changed by our joint struggles". And narratively, it completes the largely allegorical journey of Shepard perfectly. 

So...good for you. You have a professor who agrees with you. That's wonderful. And I'm glad you have someone that you can discuss these things with intelligently with and share your passions with. However, I think he and you are flat out wrong in your assessment. Sorry.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

So... Ok. This is overly emotional but screw it, I have to write something, now that the EC teaser info has largely confirmed all my worst suspicions and that podcast has given me more insight into... things.

I wanted a tale of graceful ends, about hope and free will, and the families we build for ourselves. I wanted a story about how trust is, by its very nature, a risk, and one that can do as much harm as it can good; a story that examined the benefits of trust versus the benefits of vigilance, and left the player to draw their own conclusions about what was preferable. I wanted a story that paid tribute to Roddenbury's legacy of hope in Science fiction, while still allowing for the existential horror that evokes classic Lovecraft. And I really, truly, believed I had found such a story for the first and only time in my life.

But I've read what they had to say in that podcast and well... they've said they don't know how to write that story.

That leads me to a depressing conclusion, but something I now see as the most likely interpretation: to them, Mass Effect has never been anything but a story about machines and mortals whose essential nature is hatred and heroes who sacrifice and die. Every piece of brilliance and joy that I got out of it was nothing but a mistake. Hope, trust, and understanding were all themes that snuck their way into the story by accident, that weren't intended. They were only trying to tell a story about hatred and self-sacrifice, that was all. If we see anything else in their story, we're "doing it wrong."

Every piece of hope or happiness I ever felt was nothing but headcanon.

[JeosDinas]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Hope, trust, and understanding were all themes that snuck their way into the story by accident, that weren't intended. They were only trying to tell a story about hatred and self-sacrifice, that was all.

Honestly, I cannot imagine the amount of cognitive dissonance required to believe that those three themes are in the story unintentionally. They're among the very backbones of the trilogy's thematic skeleton. 

 If we see anything else in their story, we're "doing it wrong."

If you found it, it was there. You don't find something that isn't. There is never a "wrong" way to experience a story. Each reader's experience is unique, valid, and what they felt throughout the journey, real.

Modifié par JeosDinas, 24 juin 2012 - 05:50 .

[KitaSaturnyne]

@Mani Mani

Reading what you just said reminded me of the image of a jealous boyfriend murdering their girlfriend, their reason being that they "love" them.

"If I can't have you, nobody can!" and all that.

Isn't it what the Reapers are doing in a way?

[edisnooM]

@jbauck

Finally got round to reading your blog post. Very good and true.


@drayfish

I forgot to mention this before, but I agree about the pre-endgame DLC, maybe they could make something that I could compartmentalize enough to play it but really I can't see myself caring too much.


@JeosDinas

Welcome to the thread, I realize that 150+ pages is a lot to go through but a lot of the ins and outs of the ending choices have been discussed in great detail. Also I can see what you're saying about the choices, and I'm glad that you can find something in them to enjoy though I can't myself.

I think one thing that really gets me is that regardless of what you choose you seem to have to buy in to the Synthetics vs Organics conflict. Every choice the Catalyst gives you is geared to dealing with that problem, despite the fact that the Crucible was supposed to be for dealing with the Reapers. And I reject that the problem he says we need to solve even exists, I even proved it on Rannoch.

Maybe the EC will explain things better (though it might just be a lot of hand waving and one sentence explanations), but for me as it stands Destroy requires us to kill all synthetics in a very tacked on fashion, Control is what we just finished arguing about with TIM and as jbauck mentioned in his blog is a sort of reverse indoctrination, and Synthesis is forcing evolution which somehow solves the problem (though I don't get how), because apparently we can't coexist without fundamentally changing who we are.

Also in two out of three the Reapers are still alive, and the one where they're not is the one where we have to kill our allies.


@CulturalGeekGirl

Aye. But don't give up on headcanon, to paraphrase Mel Gibson in Braveheart:

"They can never take our Headcanon!" :-)


Edit:

@KitaSaturnyne

Good summation, and also a bit depressing at that. :-)

Modifié par edisnooM, 24 juin 2012 - 06:10 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

JeosDinas wrote...

 Barring the fact that I don't really give two flips of a coin who the hell your lit professor is, I don't agree with the thematic analysis of most of the endings you've put forth. At least Destroy and Synthesis. Control is certainly the most thematically inconsistent ending choice since you spend most of the game dissuading one of the main antagonists from this course of action. It can only be seen as thematically affirming if you choose to see the narrative as one about Shepard's strength of will. But I don't think that's the case.

Destroy, thematically, is the choice of uncompromised ideals. It is about loss and sacrifice, major themes in the trilogy. This is somewhat undermined if you have an ending if Shepard lives, however. But on face value, Destroy has thematic appeal because it is the choice of unwavering resolve. 

Synthesis, meanwhile, is narratively much more complete and all encompassing. And it has the benefit of reaffirming one of the major messages of the games which is the debate over what constitues life. This is a major theme in the third game particularly. Rannoch is a crucible which resolves entirely around this question. The growing relationship of EDI and Joker since ME2 also brings it to the forefront of the game's themes. And Synthesis is, by and large, a choice which affirms this. It is the path of life. Of transformation. It does not place one form of life over another (as either the Destroy or Control endings do) and embraces all life as life. That is also happens to be a rather large rejection of the Catalyst's suppositions is also important. It says "We can and will enter a new age together. As individuals who are united and changed by our joint struggles". And narratively, it completes the largely allegorical journey of Shepard perfectly. 

So...good for you. You have a professor who agrees with you. That's wonderful. And I'm glad you have someone that you can discuss these things with intelligently with and share your passions with. However, I think he and you are flat out wrong in your assessment. Sorry.

It is a strange set of morals if committing genocide in no way compromises them.

I'm not trying to sit in moral judgment here, but that seems to be one of the primary disconnects between those of us who still find all the endings thematically revolting and those who have come to advocate destroy: they can imagine a moral compass where genocide is an acceptable loss, a non-issue easily forgotten, perhaps the subject of minor regret from time to time.

Those of us with old-fashioned views where genocide cannot be minimized in such a way get our brains hung up on that particular mental hook. "Hey, guys" some voice pipes up "are they trying to create a situation where there is justifiable genocie? Isn't that a new low, a new form of moral reprehensibility?" 

And if that's true for Destroy, what terrible hidden moral costs do the other endings bear? 

Once you decide that genocide is never "acceptable", you've already planted the seed for complete thematic revulsion regarding all the endings.

[KitaSaturnyne]

edisnooM wrote...

@CulturalGeekGirl

Aye. But don't give up on headcanon, to paraphrase Mel Gibson in Braveheart:

"They can never take our Headcanon!" :-)

KABOOOOOOM!

edisnooM wrote...

@KitaSaturnyne

Good summation, and also a bit depressing at that. :-)

Well, the Catalyst scene is a lot more depressing than I first realized. Today was the first day that it really hit home with me. It truly is the doom of the Mass Effect experience.

Modifié par KitaSaturnyne, 24 juin 2012 - 06:17 .

[drayfish]

Hi JeosDinas,
 
Welcome to the discussion. And however the following comments may sound, they are intended to be an invitation to the debate; please know that your opinion is just as welcome and valid as everyone else's.
 
I certainly do not want to speak for (and frankly couldn't do justice to) CulturalGeekGirl's position, but there has been a considerable amount of analysis throughout this thread (and elsewhere in these forums) over precisely how much of Shepard's core beliefs have to be sacrificed in the endings as they currently stand. 
 
For some responders little to no such sacrifice has to be accepted. For some, Destroy is a valid conclusion – the Geth and EDI are unfortunate casualties of war. For other (such as, it appears, yourself; though I do not want to put words in your mouth) Synthesis is the dawning of a new age of a conjoined, equal existence, with everyone living free from division and conflict. For still others, Control is a reversal of a violation of free will, Shepard's opportunity to break the hold that has strangled the universe for countless millennia and awaken a new, more hopeful future. ...And no one reading of the ending is wrong, because each is dependent upon the interpretation that the audience brings to bear on the text. 
 
However, similarly and importantly, others (like, I must admit, myself) have found that the endings violate the spirit of our Shepard, and everything that they fought for in the push toward that final choice. Again, that doesn't make one reading more valid than any other, merely an expression of our individual engagement with the text. In such a reading, being forced to bend to the will of three eventualities that do not satisfy our conception of the narrative we were participating in is a confronting break with emersion, one that throws unflattering light upon the thematic journey we believed ourselves to be engaging with.
 
To claim that someone has been deficient in their reading of the text because they do not see the same interpretation as another is neither constructive, nor illuminating. I'm sure that you didn’t mean it in such a manner (or I hope that you didn't), because it is only by being open to one another's interpretations that we can begin to see where such disconnects lie, and start to come to understand the beautiful multiplicity of reading that a text such as this can evoke.

As you yourself so elegantly state:

There is never a "wrong" way to experience a story. Each reader's experience is unique, valid, and what they felt throughout the journey, real.

Modifié par drayfish, 24 juin 2012 - 06:18 .

[delta_vee]

@JeosDinas

And Synthesis is, by and large, a choice which affirms this. It is the path of life. Of transformation. It does not place one form of life over another (as either the Destroy or Control endings do) and embraces all life as life.

I can't see it that way. I can only see Synthesis as a repudiation of life-as-it-stands, in all its forms, and an insistence that it be forced to change, forced to amalgamate, forced to hybridize immediately and absolutely. I can only see it as a statement that life - organic, synthetic, and in-between - is not only incomplete, but is a liability in its current form.

Honestly, I cannot imagine the amount of cognitive dissonance required to believe that those three themes are in the story unintentionally. They're among the very backbones of the trilogy's thematic skeleton.

Those themes are there, and then they are seemingly undone at a stroke. We are told by the game itself, at the end, that those things don't matter, that they won't save us, that they are in no way related to the precipice we face nor the solutions we are allowed.

And then the relays blow up, and the setting (with all our friends and all the places we've grown attached to) is torn asunder.

[JeosDinas]

edisnooM wrote...

@JeosDinas

Welcome to the thread, I realize that 150+ pages is a lot to go through but a lot of the ins and outs of the ending choices have been discussed in great detail. Also I can see what you're saying about the choices, and I'm glad that you can find something in them to enjoy though I can't myself.

I think one thing that really gets me is that regardless of what you choose you seem to have to buy in to the Synthetics vs Organics conflict. Every choice the Catalyst gives you is geared to dealing with that problem, despite the fact that the Crucible was supposed to be for dealing with the Reapers. And I reject that the problem he says we need to solve even exists, I even proved it on Rannoch.

Maybe the EC will explain things better (though it might just be a lot of hand waving and one sentence explanations), but for me as it stands Destroy requires us to kill all synthetics in a very tacked on fashion, Control is what we just finished arguing about with TIM and as jbauck mentioned in his blog is a sort of reverse indoctrination, and Synthesis is forcing evolution which somehow solves the problem (though I don't get how), because apparently we can't coexist without fundamentally changing who we are.

Also in two out of three the Reapers are still alive, and the one where they're not is the one where we have to kill our allies.

Hi. Of course, you are free to find whatever I might see as total bunk. I wouldn't have it any other way. To respond, I don't agree with a few premises. Particularly when you say "...
regardless of what you choose you seem to have to buy in to the Synthetics vs Organics conflict". In my mind, the Synthesis ending is, by and large, a rejection of that notion. Morally, there's some potential issues about thrusting a large change onto the galaxy. That's the major sticking point for me. But thematically? I believe it constitues a rather thorough rejection of the supposed conflict. I also don't believe that the message is "We cannot coexist without changing fundamentally". I read it much more as something akin to embracing all life as life, taking everyone's hand, and making the first step into a new, brave world as equals. I really cannot share your assessment of the message. I find it far too cynical.

Thematically, the issue with Destroy is not that is forces us to make a sacrifice in the process. That's always been something at play throughout the series. And it is a decision meant largely to make you ask questions about one of the trilogy's main questions: "what is life?". And then, it makes you ask..."Is convinction worth more than certain things?". I find it to be an interesting choice. One of the more narratively compelling, in fact, marred only by the potential for Shepard's survival and the fact that, in terms of exposition, it is poorly outlined why there is a sacrifice componant, even though the text does provide reasons.

As to the question if the fact that two endings "spares" the Reapers is a problem, I disagree with the notion that it is. At least, I believe this is what you are implying. I might be wrong. The revelation that the Reapers are essentially acting without morals is partly the reason for this. The other is that we know every Reaper contains proof of the existence of a civilization. Each is a testament to the very fact that in some distant past, certain civilizations existed. I find their destruction to be as equal a moral question as the destruction of, say, the geth. 

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Once you decide that genocide is never "acceptable", you've already planted the seed for complete thematic revulsion regarding all the endings. For the record, as much as I can find things thematically compelling to the Destroy option, I personally find it less than desireable. 

 

I would agree with this if we didn't have an ending which literally requires no real further acts of killing. Technically, we have two.

drayfish wrote...

I'm sure that you didn’t mean it in such a manner (or I hope that you didn't), because it is only by being open to one another's interpretations that we can begin to see where such disconnects lie, and start to come to understand the beautiful multiplicity of reading that a text such as this can evoke.

 

Not at all. But if I could offer a reply, I'd caution you from thinking that my disagreement of an interpretation, no matter how emphatic also equates an insult on the individual. It is the rejection of an idea, not of the a person or their experience. Nothing more. Nothing less. I can affirm the validity of everyone's interpretation while also expressing disagreement with them. I've never called anyone wrong. I've merely disagreed with their viewpoint.

delta_vee wrote...

Those themes are there, and then they are seemingly undone at a stroke. We are told by the game itself, at the end, that those things don't matter, that they won't save us, that they are in no way related to the precipice we face nor the solutions we are allowed.

 

You and I seemed to have been told two very different things.

delta_vee wrote...

I can't see it that way. 

 

The great thing is that you don't have to. 

Modifié par JeosDinas, 24 juin 2012 - 06:44 .

[KitaSaturnyne]

@drayfish

Well said. I also wanted to ask... I've been going on and on today about "thematic disconnect", and I wanted to know if what I've said speaks to your assessment of the endings being thematically revolting.

By the term "thematic disconnect", I mean that right when we meet Unicron Jr., all of the important themes and throughlines the games set up go out the window in favor of a single theme that isn't even addressed (maybe minimally?) in the overall story of the trilogy.

Or maybe, does the thematic disconnect relate more to the Catalyst's presence and scene, rather than to the Final Three™?

@CGG

While I'm not willing to believe that the themes of hope, trust, and understanding were part of the story unintentionally and were just flukes, I am willing to believe that they've lost sight of those ideals in the years they've spent crafting Mass Effect.

[drayfish]

KitaSaturnyne wrote...

@drayfish

I've been going on and on today about "thematic disconnect", and I wanted to know if what I've said speaks to your assessment of the endings being thematically revolting.

@ KitaSaturnyne: Most assuredly.  It's how absolutely each ending seems to affirm the complete opposite of the journey my Shepard thought she was on that made them so 'revolting', but the themes themselves were (to me) utterly abandoned.  All of that 'unity through diversity' stuff was jettisoned for a belief that only through death, dominance or alteration could we all get along; the entire narrative of the Geth and EDI gets (at best) ignored with the vague sentiment that, sure, AI's will revolt.  Why wouldn't they?  It's happened before.  I would argue that the fact Shepard doesn't call bullcrap on that statement (given EDI's presence, whether wanted or not, in the crew) shows just how unaware of that theme the writers had become.

Even the individual speeches of characters seemed forgotten: Garrus' I'll never leave your side, Shepard, into-the-gates-of-hell-talk, gone.  Joker's I can't believe I left you behind, I'll never do that again...  And then they wander off the ship onto planet-random, grinning up at the distant fireball that was Shepard winking at them in the distance.  Nice.

Modifié par drayfish, 24 juin 2012 - 06:46 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

To be honest, I was just wallowing in my "I-told-you-so-about-the-EC" self-righteous depression.

I don't actually believe my interpretations are invalid; however I now accept that Bioware currently has no intention of creating content that speaks to those interpretations in this or any future DLC. I already suspected that, but previously I had a decent glimmer of hope, either that the EC would go a great deal further than they suggested, or that they were leaving the door open for future content that might influence the ending. Recent media has fairly explicitly stated that they have a very firm negative stance against those ideas internally, though.

So why is canon so important? Why can't I write a little story off by myself somewhere, where the Normandy crashes through the window of the catalyst room and rescues Shepard and then they go off to live happily ever after?

I've told many stories in my life, some with happy endings, some with sad, some that are bittersweet. This was a time that I felt I was sharing in a story, connecting with the creators, participating in a shared universe with a community in a way I had never experienced before. Having it end with me going off to dream alone, sundering myself from these tale-tellers I felt I knew as distant, never-met, yet dearly cared-for friends... just feels lonely.

I'd rather go play with my own characters in my own worlds... which is actually what I've been doing lately. I really wish I liked writing space opera (most of my best stuff is magical realism/urban fantasy/cyberpunk), but I don't have the impulse for that yet.

I just... miss the feeling of being part of the shared subconscious of a genre-defining epic.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 24 juin 2012 - 06:52 .

[edisnooM]

@JeosDinas

I don't think that your opinion is bunk in the slightest, just different than my own. :-)

On the Reapers living, I'm not meaning in a sense that we need to as Zaeed says "Gut the bastards", but it's more the fact that the Catalyst pops up and says the Reapers are his, but what exactly this means isn't really clear. He says that life is preserved in Reaper form, and Sovereign and Harbinger seemed to be fairly conscious of their actions. And up until the last 10 minutes we had no reason to assume that they weren't.

They were the villains, and it's not like they agreed to leave, or surrendered or anything, it's just they continue to exist and especially in Synthesis they just leave and it's kind of like: Oh OK, uh they're just leaving. Did we win...? Hooray?

It's sort of like if in LOTR Sauron and the Nazgul had just walked away.

[drayfish]

JeosDinas wrote...

drayfish wrote...

I'm sure that you didn’t mean it in such a manner (or I hope that you didn't), because it is only by being open to one another's interpretations that we can begin to see where such disconnects lie, and start to come to understand the beautiful multiplicity of reading that a text such as this can evoke.

 

Not at all. But if I could offer a reply, I'd caution you from thinking that my disagreement of an interpretation, no matter how emphatic also equates an insult on the individual. It is the rejection of an idea, not of the a person or their experience. Nothing more. Nothing less. I can affirm the validity of everyone's interpretation while also expressing disagreement with them. I've never called anyone wrong. I've merely disagreed with their viewpoint.

 

That's wonderful to hear, JeosDinas. I'm very happy to say that I just misinterpreted your 'cognitive dissonance' comment. One of the curses of the internet, which robs us of our verbal intonations.


I guess on the plus side, no one realises that everything that I type is said using an obnoxiously sarcastic voice.

I'm soooo awesome like that.

Modifié par drayfish, 24 juin 2012 - 06:57 .

[JeosDinas]

drayfish wrote...
I guess on the plus side, no one realises that everything that I type is said using an obnoxiously sarcastic voice.

That, too, is also one of the internet's curses. 

edisnooM wrote...

They were the villains, and it's not like they agreed to leave, or surrendered or anything, it's just they continue to exist and especially in Synthesis they just leave and it's kind of like: Oh OK, uh they're just leaving. Did we win...? Hooray?

 

I suppose you might argue that there's a degree of disappointment to not being able to, say, outright slay the dragon in all cases. I suppose I'd reply that there's also something compelling and, arguably more satisfying, to defeating an enemy without needing to. But honestly, the Reapers had lost simply by the fact that Shepard had gotten where they did. The question isn't did we win. But how will we choose to "win". Through fire, subjugation, or something else?

Modifié par JeosDinas, 24 juin 2012 - 07:02 .

[KitaSaturnyne]

@drayfish

Thank you for your explanation. I guess I'm trying to understand my personal iconography regarding the Catalyst... where others might look at it and simply go "failed ending", I see it as the destroyer, the being that destroys Mass Effect. Again, when I now picture him, I see the Mass Effect universe crumbling around it, me watching helplessly.

@Mani Mani

By "[The Catalyst] says that life is preserved in Reaper form, and Sovereign and Harbinger seemed to be fairly conscious of their actions," do you mean the dichotomy between what the Catalyst perceives as philanthropy vs. Sovereign and Harbinger's intent to simply destroy all life?

@CGG

I wanted to say earlier something like "it's entirely possible, however small, that you MAY be overreacting", but I couldn't think of a single way it wouldn't sound horrifically sexist. That said though, I absolutely understand your reaction, as I too had the same inclination upon hearing the podcast interview.

[drayfish]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

I just... miss the feeling of being part of the shared subconscious of a genre-defining epic.

That is a beautiful way to put it, CulturalGeekGirl. I couldn't agree more.


EDIT: Although getting to be a part of the hive-mind of this thread has been an extraordinarily happy consolation.

Modifié par drayfish, 24 juin 2012 - 07:07 .

[devon c greenwell]

What I'm gonna hate that they might do is if you chose destroy you'll be on the citidel at the end of me1 after you kill sarin. No one said the debris pile you take a breath at the end isn't in the debris you magically climb out of completely unscathed and 100% fine and dandy. And member they came looking for you with no helmits because they have force fields.

[edisnooM]

@JeosDinas, @KitaSaturnyne

Sorry I misread JeosDinas's reply, I thought you were saying that they were acting under the control of the Catalyst, looking back now you were saying they were acting without morals, and the remnants of the civilizations themselves, sorry about that.

Still they exist because their civilizations were wiped out rather horrifically, and regardless of what their apparent motivations (again revealed in the final ten minutes and completely overwrites everything we've been doing thus far) or lack of morals, they have been committing horrific deeds in the process of their "solution". Also the Reaper on Rannoch says that they don't remember what they were before I believe, so to what extent the civilization is preserved is a little unclear.

Edit: It's also more the fact that when they leave there isn't any sense that we beat them, that they admit defeat or that they were wrong, they just leave without a word.

I didn't need to go all Captain Ahab on them, but something that gave us the impression that they were leaving because we had won, instead of that now that there weren't any pesky synthetic uprisings to worry about they could go home.

Modifié par edisnooM, 24 juin 2012 - 07:23 .

[drayfish]

KitaSaturnyne wrote...

@drayfish

Thank you for your explanation. I guess I'm trying to understand my personal iconography regarding the Catalyst... where others might look at it and simply go "failed ending", I see it as the destroyer, the being that destroys Mass Effect. Again, when I now picture him, I see the Mass Effect universe crumbling around it, me watching helplessly.

Actually, KitaSaturnyne, with your descriptions of junkyard dogs, crumbling columns, and devastation, you've got me picturing Cataract as the original Cerberus: three-headed, ghoulish snapping dog at the gates of hell.  It's not inappropriate at all.

Modifié par drayfish, 24 juin 2012 - 07:19 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

JeosDinas wrote...

drayfish wrote...
I guess on the plus side, no one realises that everything that I type is said using an obnoxiously sarcastic voice.

That, too, is also one of the internet's curses.

But this is the way I normally talk! It's made things very difficult for me.

Now, back to the debate at hand.

JeosDinas wrote...

delta_vee wrote...

Those themes are there, and then they are seemingly undone at a stroke. We are told by the game itself, at the end, that those things don't matter, that they won't save us, that they are in no way related to the precipice we face nor the solutions we are allowed.

You and I seemed to have been told two very different things.

Well... the thing is, those things can't "save" Shepard or the galaxy at the end. The only thing that is capable of preserving Shepard's life is willingness to commit atrocities, and the only thing that can save the galaxy is a willingness to control the reapers or forcibly transhumanism everyone... neither of which, for me, resonate particularly well with the themes I've discussed.

The thing is, I'm all for transhumanism, and I think a measured, gradual, voluntary transition towards transhumanism for those who want it is a potential solution to what ails us, but the means by which we achieve it at the end robs it of its thematic connection to free will and trust and voluntary growth.

[KitaSaturnyne]

drayfish wrote...

Actually, KitaSaturnyne, with your descriptions of junkyard dogs, crumbling columns, and devastation, you've got me picturing Cataract as the original Cerberus: three-headed, ghoulish snapping dog at the gates of hell.  It's not inappropriate at all.

Not only original Cerberus in terms of the mythological image, but also may even be the progenitor to the in-game Cerberus organization.

Well, maybe not. But I thought I'd throw that out there.

@CGG

In regards to Synthesis, do you believe it's preferable for everyone to just automatically get "synthesized", or do you believe more that they should have a choice in the matter? You may have articulated this at some point, but I obviously don't remember you mentioning it.

You know. Because you're all pro-synthesis and everything.

... What? I was KIDDING!