5087 réponses à ce sujet

[edisnooM]

@KitaSaturnyne

The correct phrase is:

"That was a joke." :-)


Edit:

Ah, hells bells. You know what, we're going old school. Ladies and Gentlemen: The Runaway 5

Modifié par edisnooM, 24 juin 2012 - 07:48 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

As for voluntary natural transhumanism versus synthesis, I have articulated it before, but it was long ago (in terms of this thread, anyway). One of my primary problems with the endings, the thing that makes even the best-possible-case-scenario interpretation of green thematically revolting to me, is that society in the Mass Effect universe seems entirely capable of achieving transhumanism on its own terms. If you've saved the Geth and the Quarians, I'd estimate some true transhuman entities within a few centuries, if not decades.

I will cite again the CNN story from ME2: in the Mass Effect universe there exists a ship that is capable of digitizing organic consciousnesses and allowing them to live lives in a simulation... and that is also capable of restoring those consciousnesses to organic bodies, if a corporeal organic wishes to change places. There's an ongoing voluntary exchange program going on between that ship and the council races! This is a thing that is happening in canon!

Combine this with David's ability to speak with the Geth and Shepard's little trip into the Geth AI core, and we seem so close to being able to do these things ourselves in a really productive way.

So yes, I do think that just letting us do it ourselves is immeasurably better than having it forced on everybody, for this and many other reasons. If I have time, I might try to track down my other posts on the subject.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 24 juin 2012 - 07:44 .

[KitaSaturnyne]

@Mani Mani

Oh yeah! I should have caught that. And since you mentioned it, I'll also listen to "Hell's Bells".

@CGG

It's amazing that a consciousness transfer program is underway and that lots of people are in on it. I wonder how compelling it could have been as an addition to ME3, I wonder.

[edisnooM]

@KitaSaturnyne

Ha, I was more using hells bells as the expression of exasperation than as the song title, but whatever works. :-)

[JeosDinas]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Well... the thing is, those things can't "save" Shepard or the galaxy at the end. 

I disagree fully. Those are the things which allow Shepard to reach the endgame, as it were. Without them, there is no success at all. Without them, Shepard doesn't reach the Catalsyt. And that moment alone is what causes the faulty logic of the Reaper cycle to fall apart. That, logistically, the final choices are what they are in no way dinimishes the values that got Shepard to that point.

edisnooM wrote...

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".

 

One wonders how much they can be blamed. Regardless of sentience, it's fairly clear to me that the Reapers cannot deviate from their purpose. The Cataylst admits as much. When Shepard reaches it, it flat out admits, for lack of a better paraphrasing that "We got it wrong but we cannot stop." This is the very reason why Shepard needs to choose what follows.

But this is something of a tangent. Consider for a moment that for some species and civilizations, their Reaper form is the only remaining depository of their genetic material and, possibly, spiritual essence. If we get squeamish about possibly having to sacrifice the geth, I would argue that we need to feel an equal degree of moral compunction at the notion of destroying the Reapers. Particularly since when we do, we may very well be removing the only traces of proof that certain beings, species, cultures and civilizations ever existed. As a side note, one should take the time to not that the Destroy option is essentially the inverse of the Reaper's solution. Instead of balancing the equation by removing organics, it destroys synthetics. Resets things. Admittedly, it does so with the implication that such a thing, such mass death, will not occur again but it is worth comment nontheless. 

It's actually one of the prime reasons that we should hesitate when picking Destroy. That's it main moral drawback. Control's is its inherint hypocrisy. Synthesis' comes from its unilateral, somewhat unknown nature. Yet, even with each ending having moral and philosophical sticking points, they all find ways to affirm certain themes of the series. Perhaps some do it better than others but for each of their negatives, they also allow the player to choose which themes they want to affirm the most.

I'm probably gonna bow out from this thread, by the way, so don't take any future lack of response the wrong way. Discussion on these forums occasionally bears civil debate like the current conversation but I find being here too long is an invitation to madness.

Modifié par JeosDinas, 24 juin 2012 - 11:10 .

[edisnooM]

@JeosDinas

I won't take offence if you do not reply, I completely understand not wanting to discuss the endings too much, quite often it leaves me feeling drained physically and mentally.

One thing that really irks me about the ending is how completely it changes the Reapers, the antagonists of the series, in the final moments of the game (and possibly the universe). Sovereign in ME1 gave no impression that the Reapers had any desire but to wipe the slate clean of all higher races, there seemed to be some indication that perhaps they took what they perceived to have value but eradicated all else. "You exist because we allow it, and you will end because we demand it." doesn't really inspire a lot of empathy.

Then in ME2 we are given the insight that organic life is nothing more than raw materials to the Reapers, that we are perceived by them as nothing but a means to 'Reaperduction' (I'm bringing that word back! :-) ). Apparently this would have tied into the Dark Energy story but since that was dropped we entered ME3 with harvesting and Reaperduction being the Reapers perceived goal. Harbingers final speech in Arrival gave no indication of a higher goal, and indeed seemed to have a glimmer of the old sinister Sovereign charm.

But then in the final minutes we're given the Catalyst explanation and it really falls flat for me. He doesn't say that they were wrong at all or admit culpability, merely that because Shepard got there (with the Catalyst's help I might add) with the Crucible, the solution won't work so they need a new one. This irks me incredibly because we are asked to choose a solution to a problem that moments before there was no indication it even existed. The Reapers were our problem, but now apparently it's Synthetics.

It also is annoying because as we have discussed in this thread before, the only reason that the building of the Crucible and fighting the Reapers was possible is because they deviated from their normal MO of taking the Citadel in the first place.

There was also never any indication that they were being forced to carry out the actions they took or that they felt any remorse or regret, the Catalyst certainly seems to be fine with the countless cycles and trillions of lives lost and all the atrocities committed. Further there really doesn't seem to be anything of their original species left, the Reaper on Rannoch I believe said they couldn't remember anything of what they were. So what they seem to be in the end is empty shells, filled with indifference, determined to make all other higher life like them in order to save them from the Synthetic boogeyman.

[KitaSaturnyne]

edisnooM wrote...

@JeosDinas

I won't take offence if you do not reply, I completely understand not wanting to discuss the endings too much, quite often it leaves me feeling drained physically and mentally.

One thing that really irks me about the ending is how completely it changes the Reapers, the antagonists of the series, in the final moments of the game (and possibly the universe). Sovereign in ME1 gave no impression that the Reapers had any desire but to wipe the slate clean of all higher races, there seemed to be some indication that perhaps they took what they perceived to have value but eradicated all else. "You exist because we allow it, and you will end because we demand it." doesn't really inspire a lot of empathy.

Then in ME2 we are given the insight that organic life is nothing more than raw materials to the Reapers, that we are perceived by them as nothing but a means to 'Reaperduction' (I'm bringing that word back! :-) ). Apparently this would have tied into the Dark Energy story but since that was dropped we entered ME3 with harvesting and Reaperduction being the Reapers perceived goal. Harbingers final speech in Arrival gave no indication of a higher goal, and indeed seemed to have a glimmer of the old sinister Sovereign charm.

But then in the final minutes we're given the Catalyst explanation and it really falls flat for me. He doesn't say that they were wrong at all or admit culpability, merely that because Shepard got there (with the Catalyst's help I might add) with the Crucible, the solution won't work so they need a new one. This irks me incredibly because we are asked to choose a solution to a problem that moments before there was no indication it even existed. The Reapers were our problem, but now apparently it's Synthetics.

It also is annoying because as we have discussed in this thread before, the only reason that the building of the Crucible and fighting the Reapers was possible is because they deviated from their normal MO of taking the Citadel in the first place.

There was also never any indication that they were being forced to carry out the actions they took or that they felt any remorse or regret, the Catalyst certainly seems to be fine with the countless cycles and trillions of lives lost and all the atrocities committed. Further there really doesn't seem to be anything of their original species left, the Reaper on Rannoch I believe said they couldn't remember anything of what they were. So what they seem to be in the end is empty shells, filled with indifference, determined to make all other higher life like them in order to save them from the Synthetic boogeyman.

Indeed. Tack on the fact that the Reapers' methods of "preserving" us involves killing us dead then turning us into sludge, it's like saying a digested twinkie is being "preserved" in some twisted way.

[edisnooM]

@KitaSaturnyne

I don't know, twinkies are pretty resilient. That could very well be true.

Edit:

That was a joke. :-)

Modifié par edisnooM, 24 juin 2012 - 09:43 .

[delta_vee]

@edisnooM

First Reaperduction, now Reaper-twinkies. Where does the madness end?

Also, you know what eldritch abomination didn't get its fangs pulled? The W'rkncacnter from Marathon (specifically from Infinity).

But the trackless whisper chattering through
the hollow space in these cursed walls buzzes
and threatens madness. The abomination
cracked the shells of my crew and sucked the
husks, tossing them unseen and shattering the
spindle like a dried creche.

The shields are gone, not down, but gone, and
so are the engineers. It's coming back, I'm
sure: and my last mercy is immolation.

[frypan]

Nice poem Delta, very evocative.

Thought I'd slip this last one in as a topic,before the EC decides things and brings down Society as We Know It (at least on this thread)

CultureGeekGirl made reference earlier (quite a way back) to the idea of driving back the reapers to dark space, where nobody can get at them, or at least that is the way I remember it.

What is interesting though is that after a successful playthrough, this is no longer the case in the Mass Effect Universe. The reapers are no longer safe in dark space. With the geth as allies, we have a technologically advanced society that can travel through dark space in storage, before downloading themselves into mobile combat platforms.

We also have the highly fecund and resiliant Krogan race, who may not be able to make the journey, but could serve as shock troops or massed forces in any future battles.

Finally of course there is the Rachni, who also can survive in egg form, and then rapidly reproduce, making them also candidates for long space jouneys.

All in all, alongside the united galaxy, society is in a good position to win the next war through sheer numbers and the ability to strike the enemy in their lair.

This is why I would have been happy to just drive the reapers off, and would accept Shepherd's death achieving that over the three options given. I strongly believe, through the force of resolution in those stories, that the galaxy could win any future confrontation if we could drive the reapers back for the moment.

EDIT; Actually we've seen the Krogan grown in vats. An army of Grunts, ready to be cooked up as the ships reach the reapers postion and used as borading parties on disabled reaper ships. I like that image.

Modifié par frypan, 25 juin 2012 - 01:27 .

[Jorji Costava]

Here's an incidental thought that everyone should feel completely free to ignore; it's very likely I'm covering old ground here, but as always, the mechanism between my brain and my hand that's supposed to prevent me from typing whatever comes to mind isn't working properly.

Anyways, this occurred to me looking at some of the earlier mentions of the failings of Lost and Prometheus upthread. One of the major problems a lot of people (including myself) seem to have with the Catalyst's reveal of the Reaper motives was precisely the opposite problem that people had with Lost and Prometheus. In the latter cases, people were frustrated with the failure to resolve the mysteries that had been set up throughout the course of the works. In ME3, people were frustrated with the resolution to a mystery that had not been set up at all.

I think that the developers were expecting players to eagerly anticipate the reveal of the Reapers' motivations, as if this had been some major mystery in the plot, akin to the reason for the Protheans' destruction in ME1. The catalyst was supposed to be ME3's Vigil. But nothing in the previous three games set this up at all. I, for instance, interpreted Sovereign's declaration that the Reapers are beyond our comprehension as a flag that the games were going to leave the Reapers unexplained: Any explanation we could understand would, after all, be automatically within our comprehension. Further, the regularly scheduled destruction of all advanced organic life always struck me as a really strange thing for any intelligent being to want: Trying to construct an after-the-fact rationale for such a plan seems to me something that runs a greater risk of failure than success. Indeed, when I played through the end, I didn't initially absorb the full absurdity of the Catalyst's explanation; during his exposition, I was subconsciously doing Alistair's "Not listening! La la la la la!" because I was expecting something pretty silly.

In short, I think many of us here were put off by the very idea of a mysterious being with "the answers" because the idea that we needed 'answers' had not properly been foreshadowed within the game itself. The catalyst existed to resolve a mystery no one was particularly curious about.

@frypan:

I agree with you that an ending where we drive the Reapers back to dark space would be more than satisfactory. I'm not quite sure I agree with the idea of hunting them down in dark space, since practically, it doesn't seem to be the best way to use one's resources after the galaxy has been devastated. Also, from a story-telling perspective, one may want to keep a couple Reapers around, so that they can continue to serve as something about the universe for us to be curious about. "They could still be out there, waiting for the chance to avenge themselves upon us" sounds a bit more awe-inspiring than "We hunted them all down, and yeah, they're pretty much all dead now." Maybe this depends upon the degree to which you want to continue telling stories within the Mass Effect universe after the end of Mass Effect 3.

[frypan]

@Osbornep

I was thinking more long term regarding hunting down the reapers - generations actually, with the campaign spearhead being those species best equipped in the wake of the war. However, its a good point that most races are not in that position.

I do like your other idea. Smashing the reapers as a force but having a few rogue monsters around still allows for the menace and power of them as individuals, without the threat of galactic extinction.

I'm running the speculation meter in the red here, but imagine what they might do without their main imperative. One might decide to continue the extinction agenda in its own way, another might set itself up as a god in some out of the way place. There might even be one that makes it a priority to hunt down Shepherd and/or the crew using proxies. Even withe the current endings this could be possible with some "handwavium" (Love that term CGG)

[edisnooM]

@frypan

I also would have been fine with driving the Reapers back opposed to complete eradication. It's more the fact that it had been set up that the Reapers would never stop that made me believe going in to ME3 that we would have to achieve complete victory in order to stop them. But decidedly beating them on our own terms and driving them back as a galaxy united would have been fine with me.

Also your mention of a rogue reaper hunting Shepard made me picture Shepard walking alone at night on a dark fog draped street, suddenly out of the Shadows emerges a large figure in a long trenchcoat with fedora pulled low. A single tentacle emerges from the arm of the jacket and the figure utters a single phrase:

"THIS HURTS YOU."


Edit: @osbornep

That's a good point about the Catalyst.

Modifié par edisnooM, 25 juin 2012 - 01:18 .

[frypan]

Thats a priceless image edisnooM! A perfect "bittersweet" ending right there. I'm making that semi-canon alongside Marauder Shields.

It makes more sense actually to go this way with victory. The catalyst has control of the reapers. Destroy it or whatever and the reapers really only lose their controller, which is more logical than that there is an off button. There are similarities to the end of Lord of the Rings, but who cares. They can then be fought while they are in disarray, with some fleeing, falling apart for various reasons, and others fighting it out to the bitter end.

They can also (whoo whoop speculations Will Robinson) express their individual characteristics at that point, which may be determined by the characteristics of the races they assimilated. Imagine if Harbinger was originally Prothean, which is why he was so arrogant with the smack talk, but Sovereign was the result of a race of aesthetes, hence the aloofness.

Alas, too late for all this - hence my getting it in before the EC. A last piece of whimsy about a better ending.

[drayfish]

I like all of this discussion about alternates to the Reaper destruction ending – and wholly agree about the idea of driving them back to dark space. Indeed, I'd like to directly call back CulturalGeekGirl's idea of driving them away and then slowly shutting down the Mass Relay System as everyone settles back into their lives, finally ridding ourselves of the tether that kept us bound to the Reaper's alluring technological cycle.
 
There was something so elegant and poetic about that slow winking out of the symbols that have been at the heart of this franchise, a turning off of the lights, returning the galaxy to a temporary dark while everybody got to work building up a new and better system of streaking across the stars that wouldn't lead to our inevitable decimation. We would be growing beyond the barriers the Reapers set in place for us, carving our own path. Not alone in the universe, just earning the right to reconnect; no longer propping ourselves up on corrupted technology, but finally, truly expanding out into the stars. Leaving the bogeymen of our ancient past in the world of nightmares, banished with the dawning of our new light.
 
That image has lingered in my mind since CulturalGeekGirl offered it, and frankly, for me, it's ready to kick into head-canon motion if and when the EC disappoints.
 
And I couldn't agree with you more, osbornep: knowing the Reaper 'plan' couldn't have been lower on my list of priorities when playing the game; and throwing that revelation out there in the final minutes was utterly deflating. Particularly so when the explanation was as stupid as 'I ran over your dog and have been putting poison in your food because I didn't want it to bite you'. Even using cold machine rationality, the Reapers came off looking moronic at that point. The menace was gone, the wonder evaporated, and the reasoning so flimsy that it wasn't replaced by empathy, just furious contempt. In fact, to me it almost made them sound desperate and needy. 'It's all for Yooooooooouuuu! I did it for you! whydon'tyouloveme?!?!?'
 

Modifié par drayfish, 25 juin 2012 - 03:01 .

[playoff52]

I stumbled across this video and it reminded me of this thread. All 5 videos are very well put together in looking at the various failures Bioware orchestrated with this game. Figured I'd link(or relink it incase some have seen it) for everyone to view and enjoy.

As a writer the narrator points out everything that hit my own mind while I was watching the ending for the first time. He elaborates on most of the things that made the ending just feel....wrong or off from a narrative point of view. Worth a watch  And he's pretty funny as well informative ^.^

[edisnooM]

@playoff52

Yeah I've watched the first four and they are pretty good, I haven't gotten around to the fifth one yet because an hour and a half is pretty daunting.

[playoff52]

It's pretty good in my opinion, very comprehensive in taking a look at the 3rd game, it's misses, and how the series overall just tends to go downhill due to lack of planning and logical progression.

[frypan]

@Drayfish

CGG's idea was certainly a powerful one, however it wasnt my first choice for an ending. But I want to keep the idea alive as a potential ending, and am wondering what this state of being is, where there are so many non canon, yet brilliant endings.

See I want to preserve all of them as a possibility, rather than the one on offer, and am looking for a precedent. Nothing in the classics helps here, at least from an authorship persepctive. While stories were changed, each author would offer their own interpretation as a single version - ie the apotheosis of Hercules in Sophocles, or the numerous retellings of the Trojan war story (especially as there was no horse in the original one!).

Nowhere is a story told where multiple versions of an ending exist concurrently, as far as I can tell. Maybe in time travel and parallel universe stories, but even those seem to follow one protagonist through to the end ie the film Timecrimes highlights the attempts to break a preordained set of circumstances in a linear fashion. All stories seem to be limited in this regards of course.

The exception seems to have its roots in videogames where even the canon ending can be different depending on choices. However each story runs a single course, as opposed to what I seem to be attempting here.

In our case, multiple versions of an alternative ending exist in more than just "speculation format" and in accepting these widely divergent endings as all legitimate, I wonder if this is a new phenomenon beyond the fanfic aspect, which itself is just one version as well. I accept CGGs versions, Marauder shields and even edisnooM's Harby the Trenchcoat Avenger as legitimate in their own way as an extension of the tale.

Its "another story of the Shepherd" over and over again. However each diminishes and even defies the canon ending. Ultimately, its an interpretative act and more a reception issue than authoriship I suppose, but any thoughts from our more literary inclined would be appreciated.

EDIT Thanks for the links Playoff52. I'll need that parallel universe to get through all the good sources on the game it seems!

Modifié par frypan, 25 juin 2012 - 03:54 .

[delta_vee]

@frypan

Nowhere is a story told where multiple versions of an ending exist concurrentoy, as far as I can tell.

28 Days Later did it. Also, much as I loathe Ayn Rand, Night of January 16th had endings for "guilty" and "not guilty", depending on audience reaction.

These, however, are merely a choice of canonical, produced endings, instead of headcanon.

[frypan]

@Delta

But in each case, dont we select one as the preferred choice? I am not sure that the intention, or the reception of 28 days later involves accepting both the live/not live ending. The authors simply created two versions.

I suppose we as audience can accept both simultaneously, and an individual can choose to accept both as legitimate altenative endings. My view of ME3 though is a little more inclusive, with acceptance that they all exist on some level as a shared experience.

Guess that means it really rests in the area of audience studies. I have my own version or several versions, then a range of others that I accept in parallel as legitimate alternative endings and can discuss all of them as worthy, concurrent concepts, swicthing perspective as required to accept the premise and codex requirements for each one.

Parallel Headcanon Reception Studies - put that on the Campion College curriculum please.

Modifié par frypan, 25 juin 2012 - 04:08 .

[delta_vee]

@frypan

Alas, these are the perils of the Ending-O-Tron device (is there a Latin term for that?). My fundamental objection to any form of ending buffet is exactly that sense of all coexisting simultaneously.

Perhaps this is just me being too persnickety, too absolutist, too something, but I can't help feeling like an ending, any ending, should carry some air of inevitability. It should be something whose outcome is determined further back than the final minutes, regardless of medium. This is something I expect from every story. Adherence to this principle is why Hamlet's fate is sealed the moment he stabs Polonius, and failing to follow it is why the end of BSG left me throwing things at the screen (sorry, Hawk227, your viewing is all in vain). It's why the structure of Memento works so well - we are shown the end of the story up front, and spend the rest of the movie learning exactly how and why it was so inevitable, and the end of the movie is at once the end of one narrative and the beginning of another (both of which we've now seen, and all falls into place).

In other words, whenever you have multiple endings only diverging from a point very close to the subjective end of the story, on some level I believe the author has failed on some level.

Modifié par delta_vee, 25 juin 2012 - 04:40 .

[KitaSaturnyne]

@osbornep

Absolutely. Dead on.

@frypan

The head canon is strong with this one.

@Mani Mani

Priceless! God help us if it also turns out to be a flasher though.

drayfish wrote...

There was something so elegant and poetic about that slow winking out of the symbols that have been at the heart of this franchise, a turning off of the lights, returning the galaxy to a temporary dark while everybody got to work building up a new and better system of streaking across the stars that wouldn't lead to our inevitable decimation. We would be growing beyond the barriers the Reapers set in place for us, carving our own path. Not alone in the universe, just earning the right to reconnect; no longer propping ourselves up on corrupted technology, but finally, truly expanding out into the stars. Leaving the bogeymen of our ancient past in the world of nightmares, banished with the dawning of our new light.

Thought: Could it be that the species of the galaxy won the war in ME3 because they were allowed more time to grow and develop than they should have? Remember, we were afforded an extra few hundred years because Sovereign's initial signal to the Keepers didn't work. Apparently, the sequence of events points to that occurring at least two millenia prior to the first game, since Sovereign apparently wanted to use the Rachni to get the Citadel up and running again. As always, I'm completely open to being wrong.

Also, I wanted to reiterate: playing through the Mass Effect series is a traumatic experience. We spend the first two games building up this entire universe with all our favorite characters, only to have it cruelly and unjustly torn to shreds in the last ten minutes of the trilogy. No wonder so few want to return to it.

[frypan]

@Delta

I believe a rough translation could be fines ex rebus (literally) "endings from the thingies", similar to deus ex machina but more reflective of the vagueness of the machinery involved.

I feel your pain though, and usually let the story run the way things were designed. That is to say that up until three months ago I would have passively sat by and accepted things with a shrug. I even reserved my ire at BSG for its earlier sins regarding characterisation, and found the ending good just because it put an end to the general ****ishness of so many of the characters.

Different now though, as I have been made terribly aware of the necessity of a thematically strong ending. Curse you thread, and all your lucid arguments!

EDIT - Ooh, didnt realise that was a swear word. But to reiterate, inevitability is an interesting concept, certainly in line with the fate of Oedipus et al, but also, I guess, an essential partner to thematic continuity in many cases. 

EDIT 2: @Kita. The hundreds of years seems so tiny on the scale of things, you'd have to wonder how fragile the reapers' plan was if they cut it that close each time.

Modifié par frypan, 25 juin 2012 - 05:32 .

[thisisme8]

Interesting point:

Sovereign states that reapers are beyond comprehension.
People don't like the Catalyst because he is illogical.

Hmmm...