5087 réponses à ce sujet

[Jorji Costava]

delta_vee wrote...

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.

What you're saying here makes a lot of sense; there does seem something very right about the idea that the ending of a story should follow from the logic of the story up to that point (otherwise, what would be the point of foreshadowing as a literary device?). To clarify, what I assume you're objecting to is the ending-o-tron in particular, where the ending turns on one particular act moments before the game ends, rather than the idea of multiple endings in general (as long as those endings stem logically from one's prior choices).

That sounds basically right to me, yet I still have a nitpicky worry about applying this logic to video games: Why single out the ending? In other words, what's the principled difference between the ending and other moments/choices in the game such that the ending must be in some sense inevitable (given one's past choices), whereas other critical moments need not be? For instance, on Rannoch, depending upon your past choices, you may be unable to make peace between the Quarians and the Geth. Would you consider this consistent with the principles you've articulated here, and if not, why not? There's no devastating objection here; just trying to get clear on your thinking about this.

Also, I just posted on awtr.ca; it wasn't a particularly intelligent post, though, so don't get too exicted yet.

@playoff52

Thanks for the link, and welcome! Smudboy's videos have some good stuff, but I do think he tends to focus on plot mechanics and consistency far too much. He'll discuss a major difficulty, then bring up a trivial inconsistency and discuss them as if they have the same weight. Personally, I felt that the OP of this thread was a much better and more efficient explanation of the problems with the ending than Bookends of Destruction 1-5.

@thisisme8:

That is an interesting point. One thing to keep in mind is the distinction between not comprehending what someone says, and comprehending that thing while recognizing that it just isn't a rational thing to believe. The problem is that we do understand the catalyt's reasoning, and based on that understanding, we can recognize that the reasoning just isn't very good.

@drayfish:

That's a hilariously appropriate description of the catalyst. First Darth Vader, now the Reapers: Why does every seemingly evil and mysterious being have to have a really bad case of teen angst? Maybe the catalyst should have manifested himself as some punk teenager with dyed hair, lots of eye-liner, and an Expel 10 t-shirt..

/night

EDIT: Uh-oh. Since I'm being so rebellious by daring to post at the top of the page, how about Copland's Billy the Kid?

Modifié par osbornep, 25 juin 2012 - 06:16 .

[thisisme8]

osbornep wrote...

@thisisme8:

That is an interesting point. One thing to keep in mind is the distinction between not comprehending what someone says, and comprehending that thing while recognizing that it just isn't a rational thing to believe. The problem is that we do understand the catalyt's reasoning, and based on that understanding, we can recognize that the reasoning just isn't very good.

Actually, it's questionable how much we actually understand his reasoning, as everything he says lacks any real form of context.

Based off of his past, creation, or evolution, his reasoning could be excellent, deranged, or somewhere in-between.  We just don't know.  All we know is our current cycle and bits and pieces of the last cycle.  We have hints that his reasoning isn't too far of a stretch - both ours and the prothean cycles had synthetic-organic wars prior to reaper influence/invasion - but we don't have any information regarding the past thousand or so cycles, or even the events that led to the creation of the Catalyst.

With that in mind, his reasoning is beyond our comprehension unless further clarified.  No matter how illogical it sounds to us, the simple fact that we weren't there for his creation (or his decision to enact the cycle) means that any projections of our perception of logic onto him are irrelevent as they lack sufficient understanding and context.

[frypan]

@thisisme8

Well said. I like "deranged" myself.

We are asked to accept, and make a galaxy changing set of decisions based on his reasoning, just because he was pooped out of a poorly understood plot device.

This I suspect is a problem with holding back this particular big reveal for the final moments of the game. Maybe they should have put this sort of exposition in earlier, and given us a chance to get used to the idea as part of the game's ongoing storytelling?

[thisisme8]

frypan wrote...

@thisisme8

Well said. I like "deranged" myself.

We are asked to accept, and make a galaxy changing set of decisions based on his reasoning, just because he was pooped out of a poorly understood plot device.

This I suspect is a problem with holding back this particular big reveal for the final moments of the game. Maybe they should have put this sort of exposition in earlier, and given us a chance to get used to the idea as part of the game's ongoing storytelling?

Go back and read (or re-read) a bunch of old-school sci-fi books.  You'll A) be thankful for what little sense any of ME makes, and be thankful that there is a codex instead of just pages of trying to explain any one concept (in the case of hard sci-fi).

EDIT:  We herald some of the older works as masterpieces, but if they were released today, our extremely "intellecutal" audience would rage at the terribleness (now a word) of them and overanalyze everything that has no merit while ignoring major themes and actual substance.

Modifié par thisisme8, 25 juin 2012 - 06:56 .

[frypan]

@thisisme8

Hadnt even thought of the older Sci Fi. I am assuming you mean Asimov, Clarke and the like? Not sure as they seemed reasonably fine as stories - maybe I've edited out the scarier science bits and bad storytelling. That's about as far back as my experience goes, and I can't off the top of my head remember any really bad stuff. The Dune series certainly dragged itself out discussing the intricacies of the world, but that was more xenoecological (is that a word?) and social stuff than scientfic and still works - at least I assume so by the number of sequels and continuations.

As an aside, I thought some stuff like Sector General was great, with all its detailed stories of alien anatomy. However its probably not the type of story you mean, and I mention it as  have yet to find anyone else that has read it.

ME is an interesting case. We get a lot of exposition in the first two games, particular the first one and all its wonderful convesations. Those of us who enjoyed it could opt for the codex as well - something that was handy when having a break from the gameplay (usually snack involved)

I agree that it generally made sense, at least by its own internal logic. Not hard Sci Fi thank goodness, as you note, which is probably why.

In the case of the catalyst, I think that the general consensus on this thread is that being incomprehensible was not actually the major problem. Being asked to make a game changing decision based on it, and not understanding fully the parameters of the decision and the result. created a lot of confusion. We'll hopefully see some of that addressed very soon though.

The thematic role of the catalyst though, that is another issue entirely. It enunciated some basic ideas that for many of us, just didnt resonate with the rest of the series. For me, this was a major sticking point and all the niggling little issues would evaporate if this had been handled better - there are plenty of issues in the other games that I just shrug off as they have no real effect on how much I enjoy the game.

This one issue contextualises the whole game experience in a way I don't particularly enjoy, for many reasons such as the simplification of the game to the synthetics vs organics argument of the catalyst, which had no relevance to major plot lines like the genophage cure. Works for others though, so once again its a matter of personal taste.

EDIT: I'm still trying to remember some of the heavier early Sci Fi stuff (without getting of my bum to peruse the bookshelf) Any ideas folks, or will Fapmaster''s summon spell work on Delta_Vee?

EDIT: Not sure if I've answered your post, or wandered off into nostalgia. Apologies if I got off topic a bit there.

Modifié par frypan, 25 juin 2012 - 07:51 .

[thisisme8]

frypan wrote...

@thisisme8

Hadnt even thought of the older Sci Fi. I am assuming you mean Asimov, Clarke and the like? Not sure as they seemed reasonably fine as stories - maybe I've edited out the scarier science bits and bad storytelling. That's about as far back as my experience goes, and I can't off the top of my head remember any really bad stuff. The Dune series certainly dragged itself out discussing the intricacies of the world, but that was more xenoecological (is that a word?) and social stuff than scientfic and still works - at least I assume so by the number of sequels and continuations.

As an aside, I thought some stuff like Sector General was great, with all its detailed stories of alien anatomy. However its probably not the type of story you mean, and I mention it as  have yet to find anyone else that has read it.

ME is an interesting case. We get a lot of exposition in the first two games, particular the first one and all its wonderful convesations. Those of us who enjoyed it could opt for the codex as well - something that was handy when having a break from the gameplay (usually snack involved)

I agree that it generally made sense, at least by its own internal logic. Not hard Sci Fi thank goodness, as you note, which is probably why.

In the case of the catalyst, I think that the general consensus on this thread is that being incomprehensible was not actually the major problem. Being asked to make a game changing decision based on it, and not understanding fully the parameters of the decision and the result. created a lot of confusion. We'll hopefully see some of that addressed very soon though.

The thematic role of the catalyst though, that is another issue entirely. It enunciated some basic ideas that for many of us, just didnt resonate with the rest of the series. For me, this was a major sticking point and all the niggling little issues would evaporate if this had been handled better - there are plenty of issues in the other games that I just shrug off as they have no real effect on how much I enjoy the game.

This one issue contextualises the whole game experience in a way I don't particularly enjoy, for many reasons such as the simplification of the game to the synthetics vs organics argument of the catalyst, which had no relevance to major plot lines like the genophage cure. Works for others though, so once again its a matter of personal taste.

EDIT: I'm still trying to remember some of the heavier early Sci Fi stuff (without getting of my bum to peruse the bookshelf) Any ideas folks, or will Fapmaster''s summon spell work on Delta_Vee?

EDIT: Not sure if I've answered your post, or wandered off into nostalgia. Apologies if I got off topic a bit there.

Regarding Dune:  That is the textbook definition of hard sci-fi.  Even though he explains everything in excruciating detail, I still can't blame anyone for questioning how the worm is the spice and the spice is the worm.  Hell, you could just read the first and last page of each chapter and still get the plot of the story as long you accept that the science is explained ad-nasuem in the pages you skipped.  Still love it for some reason though.

But the further back you go, the worse it gets.  The best way to describe it is baffling.  You seriously come across writing like:

"Snorgard didn't know what to do.  Luckily, Oogledorfs are telepathic on Tuesdays, so he easily read the code from John's mind."

Wait, what?  When did that happen?  Edgar Rice Burrows is a good example of this (although my example was a tad extreme) and The Princess of Mars is heralded as a sci-fi classic.  He created Tarzan for crying out loud, he can do no wrong!

The funny thing about the ending to ME3 is that it caters to the current, demanding audience of "intellectuals" who demand that all things be explained in flawless logic.  So they couldn't just leave the reapers as beings beyond our comprehension because people would have raged at the lack of explanation.  On the same token, by explaining it, people raged at the lack of logic.  Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

The interesting point (and source of humor) is that the catalyst is illogical by definition, so arguing that it is illogical is actually...  illogical.  How?  Logic relies heavily on context and perception.  To apply our perception of logic to a being that is not only inhuman but also so far removed from our culture and civilization (he is 50 million years old) is impossible since we can't perceive the context in which its logic was formed.  This puts Shepard into quite the dilemna.  In the end though, the choices - while not optimal - still provide a means to end the cycle.

Still, the reapers were always something beyond our comprehension, even if they were explained.  No matter the ending, it would always be bitter-sweet since we never got the chance (and technically never could) to understand our enemy.  Unless the end was blowing them out of the sky while turning around and walking towards the camera right as the explosions were set off.

Modifié par thisisme8, 25 juin 2012 - 08:13 .

[Jassu1979]

thisisme8 wrote...
Actually, it's questionable how much we actually understand his reasoning, as everything he says lacks any real form of context.

No.

It's true that the Catalyst's notorious lines lack any context, but that does *not* mean we cannot understand his reasoning.
What little information we *do* have suffices to show just how inane the whole scenario is:

The Star Child argues along the lines of probability, committing SO many fallacies on the way that I cannot even unravel them into separate categories.

Basically, his argument boils down to: "Whatever CAN happen, WILL happen, therefore genocide in 50,000-year intervals."

Not only is his conclusion faulty, but his "solution" does *nothing* to solve the convoluted problem he proposes.

It's a bit like suggesting that since knowing how to split atoms creates the danger of a nuclear holocaust, all cultures that might be tech-savvy enough to discover it need to be destroyed in a brutal genocide.

(Oh, and by the way: you'll be hard-pressed to find "pure" hard SciFi: virtually every text ranges somewhere below 100% accuracy by its very nature, yet what we see at the end of Mass Effect 3 pretty much breaks the rules of the established fictional universe, taking a game that scored approximately 50% on the "hard SciFi"-scale and reducing it to the same level as "Star Wars".)

[thisisme8]

Jassu1979 wrote...

thisisme8 wrote...
Actually, it's questionable how much we actually understand his reasoning, as everything he says lacks any real form of context.

No.

It's true that the Catalyst's notorious lines lack any context, but that does *not* mean we cannot understand his reasoning.
What little information we *do* have suffices to show just how inane the whole scenario is:

The Star Child argues along the lines of probability, committing SO many fallacies on the way that I cannot even unravel them into separate categories.

Basically, his argument boils down to: "Whatever CAN happen, WILL happen, therefore genocide in 50,000-year intervals."

Not only is his conclusion faulty, but his "solution" does *nothing* to solve the convoluted problem he proposes.

It's a bit like suggesting that since knowing how to split atoms creates the danger of a nuclear holocaust, all cultures that might be tech-savvy enough to discover it need to be destroyed in a brutal genocide.

(Oh, and by the way: you'll be hard-pressed to find "pure" hard SciFi: virtually every text ranges somewhere below 100% accuracy by its very nature, yet what we see at the end of Mass Effect 3 pretty much breaks the rules of the established fictional universe, taking a game that scored approximately 50% on the "hard SciFi"-scale and reducing it to the same level as "Star Wars".)

I get flamed for this every time, but here goes:

Your logical fallacy "Whatever can happen, will happen," has limited application.  There comes a point where probability outweighs fallacy.

Here's what we don't know:  Almost anything that was happening at the time prior to the first cycle.
Here's what we know:  Something happened or kept happening to such a degree where the probability of the problem reoccuring was so high that it demanded a most drastic measure to counter it.

My point is, you don't know the context of the choice, so you can't use your perception of logic to explain it.

"War has always been a part of humanity, therefore war will always be a part of humanity."

That's a logical fallacy, but the probability of it is so astronomically high that to not prepare for it is the actual illogical choice.  As a matter of fact, there has never been a period in our entire existance where we have not been at war with each other.

Regarding the method:  again, projecting human morality and perception of life is irrelevent to a machine that sees us as mere strands of DNA that it can harvest to preserve.

Modifié par thisisme8, 25 juin 2012 - 08:51 .

[Jassu1979]

thisisme8 wrote...
Here's what we don't know:  Almost anything that was happening at the time prior to the first cycle.

Irrelevant, and not exactly accurate, either:

We *know* that even if a technological singularity *did* occur before, it did not proceed to wipe out all organic life in the galaxy like the Catalyst predicts.

How do we know that? Because organic life is still around, and not completely replaced by synthetic superbeings.

Thus, the conclusion *is* based on a fundamentally faulty premise.

Here's what we know:  Something happened or kept happening to such a degree where the probability of the problem reoccuring was so high that it demanded a most drastic measure to counter it.

We know no such thing. As you were the one who kept on arguing that we have insufficient information, you should not jump to unfounded conclusions. What you say here is entirely based on accepting whatever the Catalyst is saying at face value. In a way, that's like meeting Hitler and accepting that the Jews had to die by the millions in order to prevent the gradual subversion of humanity. "The Jews will always work to undermine their betters."

And no, the problem with the Catalyst's "solution" is not only that it clashes with human notions of morality. The problem is that it's so impractical that it can barely be called a solution to begin with.

[frypan]

@thisisme8

Ah, I get your point more clearly now. Thats an interesting idea and I dont remember anyone else arguing the catalyst part of the ending along those lines.

If I can paraphrase your argument, the idea that the catalyst's description seems illogical is actually due to the limitations of Shepherd communicating with a primordial intelligence. In effect, it cannot enunciate its motives clearly or he/she cannot understand them, as there is very little common ground for understanding. Hence, the "yo dawg" argument put forward as a criticism of its motives is actually just our lack of understanding as organics, and to be expected.

It certainly makes for a better way of viewing the ending to get past some of the logical issues. It requires we contextualise this scene with Sovereign's initial statements, and as a continuation of the idea that we simply do not understand such intelligences.The creature changes its program for reasons that dont make sense to us, and our human view of war (ie Shepherd is near death so why does it give in) However these fit its own definition of a changing paradigm.

As an idea that also addresses one of Science Fiction's great weaknesses, translating the utterly alien onto the screen or page, by keeping it incomprehensible - with only the observable effects to understand what is going on. The reapers stay alien, just in a different way.

Does this mean we should view the whole child scene, and the truncated conversation as an ancient being struggling to fit its conception of the Universe into organic language?

In that case the main problems seem to be with the execution, which left many of us foundering to understand. If we had truly felt ourselves to be in the presence of an alien intelligence it might have worked better.

Maybe the child avatar appearing without any apparent struggle to communicate was the issue? We needed something to prepare us for the confrontation and to remind us that there were difficulties of communication with such an ancient and foreign entity.

How to do that without a dose of the Oogledorfs though, I dont know, however at present its choices feel arbitrary, and too much a manifestation of a rushed endgame. At any rate, I guess we'll know very soon if that is the message with the arrival of the EC, but there is a lot of potential if that was the devs intent.

I still can't say I enjoy it though, as it seems to wrest the thematic centre of the game away from where I had interpreted it, and the goals I had set myself as player. I simply cant bring myself to enjoy the shift from the more straight forward heroic story it had been so far.

Nevertheless your approach provides a real interesting context with which to view and understand the scene. Its the only explanation I have read that makes it understandable, nay, even interesting for the evocation of the ancient enemy and its inscrutable nature.

EDIT: I still love Dune too. Had never thought of questioning the whole spice aspect of the giant worms though, they were just too much fun.

Modifié par frypan, 25 juin 2012 - 09:11 .

[KitaSaturnyne]

My new word for the day is "solipsistic".

The Catalyst is very solipsistic.

[thisisme8]

@Jassu1979

I don't think you see my point.

@frypan

Pretty much. Also, if you notice the conversation between Shepard and the catalyst, Shepard doesn't seem to understand the catalyst, and the catalyst doesn't understand why Shepard doesn't understand... if that makes sense.

I agree that ending isn't perfect, but taking a step back, it would be impossible to meet all the expectations of the fans. The scope is too big, as was the fanbase.

EDIT: I'm actually not familiar with the "Yo Dawg" part. . .

Modifié par thisisme8, 25 juin 2012 - 09:44 .

[Jassu1979]

thisisme8 wrote...

@Jassu1979

I don't think you see my point.

I do not think you *have* a point. Your line of argument is flawed from the get-go.

[thisisme8]

Jassu1979 wrote...

thisisme8 wrote...

@Jassu1979

I don't think you see my point.

I do not think you *have* a point. Your line of argument is flawed from the get-go.

My line of argument concedes that I'm not all-knowing which opposes your argument that all beings regardless of history, age, decent, evolution, etc. will fall neatly into our perfect rules of established logic.

[Jassu1979]

thisisme8 wrote...
My line of argument concedes that I'm not all-knowing which opposes your argument that all beings regardless of history, age, decent, evolution, etc. will fall neatly into our perfect rules of established logic.

Do you have fun pushing that straw man around?

If yes, then further discussion might prove unnecessary and futile.

If not, actually address what I wrote.

[Jassu1979]

thisisme8 wrote...


My line of argument concedes that I'm not all-knowing[...}

And my line of argument points out that you don't need to be.

[thisisme8]

Jassu1979 wrote...

thisisme8 wrote...
My line of argument concedes that I'm not all-knowing which opposes your argument that all beings regardless of history, age, decent, evolution, etc. will fall neatly into our perfect rules of established logic.

Do you have fun pushing that straw man around?

If yes, then further discussion might prove unnecessary and futile.

If not, actually address what I wrote.

First, look at what Frypan wrote in his most recent post.  I think he re-explains it a bit differently (most likely better) after seeing my point.  If you still don't agree with me, I'll continue, but I just want to make sure my view is understood and this isn't just a case of miscommunication.

I can continue in here or your other thread, which honestly, I'm concerned that it will be closed because of the title.

[frypan]

thisisme8 wrote...

I get flamed for this every time, but here goes:

SNIP - for brevity

Regarding the method:  again, projecting human morality and perception of life is irrelevent to a machine that sees us as mere strands of DNA that it can harvest to preserve.

I think I can speak for most of the regulars on this thread and say you wont get flamed by us, and certainly not by me. Although most of us are in agreement about our dislike of the ending, such a consensus is not necessarily always good. We need to discuss all sides of the argument and  challenge our patterns of thinking. 

Your evocation of the utter alienness of the reapers is well worth investigation, as it opens possibilities regarding the interpretation of that oh-so-important catalyst scene. I for myself am happy to consider it.

My only real issue is the manifestation of the starchild, which suggests an understanding of Shepherd's mindset. If the catalyst  can understand him so thoroughly, why can't it communicate its program better?  Is this a problem of execution and the use of the Starchild, or is it that the entity is able to draw language and images from its environment, but its essential motivation and logic are not understandable?

Whatever the case, putting aside my distaste for the child yields its own rewards. If we accept that reaper motivation is a black box, we still have its attempt to communicate, and the manifestation of its program of extermination. From that we can say that the catalyst had no issue slaughtering creatures in ways inefficient to us, it held almost limitless power, and appeared to go to war on what we consider a flimsy pretext. yet, when it almost had us beaten, it gave up.

As gamers we struggle with this, yet these are all  manifestations of that alien intelligence and its bizarre motives. I still have the strong feeling the devs just dropped the ball here, but the signs do point towards some sort of emphasis on the enemy just being incomprehensibe. A bizarre but fascinating idea.

EDIT: Folks, please keep it civil. We'd like to keep the thread going past the EC and all ideas are welcome.

Modifié par frypan, 25 juin 2012 - 09:47 .

[Jassu1979]

I don't think the Catalyst is supposed to be incomprehensibly alien to us.
The way the ending was written, it is pretty clear that we were supposed to accept its line of argument, just as we were supposed to accept that the Catalyst is not antagonistic based on its appearance.

If they wanted to keep the Reapers incomprehensibly alien, then offering no explanation whatsoever would have been the way to go. Instead, we received a hackneyed "tech singularity"-premise that felt tacked on and did not mesh with the established lore and internal consistency of the Mass Effect universe.

[thisisme8]

frypan wrote...

thisisme8 wrote...

I get flamed for this every time, but here goes:

SNIP - for brevity

Regarding the method:  again, projecting human morality and perception of life is irrelevent to a machine that sees us as mere strands of DNA that it can harvest to preserve.

I think I can speak for most of the regulars on this thread and say you wont get flamed by us, and certainly not by me. Although most of us are in agreement about our dislike of the ending, such a consensus is not necessarily always good. We need to discuss all sides of the argument and  challenge our patterns of thinking. 

Your evocation of the utter alienness of the reapers is well worth investigation, as it opens possibilities regarding the interpretation of that oh-so-important catalyst scene. I for myself am happy to consider it.

My only real issue is the manifestation of the starchild, which suggests an understanding of Shepherd's mindset. If the catalyst  can understand him so thoroughly, why can't it communicate its program better?  Is this a problem of execution and the use of the Starchild, or is it that the entity is able to draw language and images from its environment, but its essential motivation and logic are not understandable?

Whatever the case, putting aside my distaste for the child yields its own rewards. If we accept that reaper motivation is a black box, we still have its attempt to communicate, and the manifestation of its program of extermination. From that we can say that the catalyst had no issue slaughtering creatures in ways inefficient to us, it held almost limitless power, and appeared to go to war on what we consider a flimsy pretext. yet, when it almost had us beaten, it gave up.

As gamers we struggle with this, yet these are all  manifestations of that alien intelligence and its bizarre motives. I still have the strong feeling the devs just dropped the ball here, but the signs do point towards some sort of emphasis on the enemy just being incomprehensibe. A bizarre but fascinating idea.

EDIT: Folks, please keep it civil. We'd like to keep the thread going past the EC and all ideas are welcome.

I think it's important to be able to look at the different scenes and say, "this was intentionally included to be realistic, this other thing was us expressing ourselves artistically, and this last thing was sadly us running out of time."

So much speculation and analysis is poured over every single detail in the hopes that it all means something, eventually we'll come across a piece that lets us down because the creators are still human.  I'm not trying to be a BioWare fanboy or anything by saying that, but it helps us grasp why certain things seem out of place, odd, or unexplainable.

My interpretation of the end may be based on my immediate love for Sovereign's line in ME1 where he claims to be "beyond your comprehension."  But I could be totally off.  I do know, however, that everything I know about logic and reasoning is based on my perceptions and the context therein.  Also, I've lived all over the world, so I'm used to the idea that what is common here, may not be common there.  What is known or accepted in one place may not be in another.  That same line of thought is why it isn't so hard for me to believe that an alien being, 50 million years old, might see things differently, and in a way that I can't understand.

[Ieldra]

edisnooM wrote...
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.

The thing is, the reproduction hypothesis is proven wrong in ME2. EDI speculated about the Reapers' purpose, as she admits, but Legion *knew*: He tells us that Reapers are "Transcended flesh. Billions of organic minds, uploaded and conjoined within an immortal machine body", and "more your [organics'] future than ours [the geth's]". Only the former dialogue is very hard to get. You need to get to the Dyson sphere dialogue before the SM, which requires sacrificing the crew, use a specific option there, and then speak to Legion again after the SM. You get one chance only. Information as important as this should have been part of the critical path.

Once you know this, perception of the Reapers changes. You can't just dismiss them from moral consideration any more (or rather, I should say you're justified in not dismissing them), depending on the answer to the question "why the hell are they doing this and do they have a choice?" The Reapers' motivations have the potential to become a deciding factor from the end of ME2 onward. And it's not that this wasn't foreshadowed by Sovereign's "each of us is a nation." The other aspects of the presentation just overrode it.

So, no I didn't enter ME3 with "Reaperduction" (LOL @ the term) as the Reapers' goal in my mind. Besides, that would have been incredibly cheap, to reduce a cosmic mystery to simple reproduction.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 25 juin 2012 - 10:06 .

[frypan]

@Jassu1979

You're probably right about the devs, but the challenge of portraying an alien intelligence is a huge one, and its entirely possible they were at least aiming for the ideas expressed by thisisme8. Like any of the ideas about the ending I think its certainly worth considering, especially as I can't remember it being raised on on this (very anti-ending) thread.

Plus, my current interpretation of the end is not one that makes me happy - so a point of view that challenges it is very welcome.

I could really respect Bioware if this what was they were attempting to do. Consider that they have consistently worked hard at the portrayal of the nuances of alien lifeforms, whether it be the reproductive and life cycles of creatures, their biochemistry, history or outlook. For instance the Krogan are grim and nihilistic thanks to the genophage, the Salarians impatient due to their short lifespan.

It is possible that the devs were addressing the incomprehensibity of the Reapers as well, even if they didn't manage to communicate that message very well. I dont like the results of the reaper program, specifically the killing of the Geth, as it runs against the themes of the Quarian/Geth storyline and other themes. Nevertheless, the idea could be an insight into the devs mind and the Alien intelligence concept simply poorly communicated due to time and/or budget limitations. I guess tommorrow we shall see!

"Cough, cough" What's that, am I getting sick? Might not be able to go to work tomorroow.

Modifié par frypan, 25 juin 2012 - 10:19 .

[thisisme8]

Jassu1979 wrote...

I don't think the Catalyst is supposed to be incomprehensibly alien to us.
The way the ending was written, it is pretty clear that we were supposed to accept its line of argument, just as we were supposed to accept that the Catalyst is not antagonistic based on its appearance.

If they wanted to keep the Reapers incomprehensibly alien, then offering no explanation whatsoever would have been the way to go. Instead, we received a hackneyed "tech singularity"-premise that felt tacked on and did not mesh with the established lore and internal consistency of the Mass Effect universe.

Referencing my reply to Frypan, I think the dialogue in that scene is intended, the catalyst taking on the appearance of the boy is an artistic decision, and the inevitable plot holes are because the writers (plural) are human.

I do believe that the reason behind the cycle and the motives of the catalyst being illogical is by design.  Basically, the writers are presenting you with a confrontation where the enemy attempts to reason an appalling and monstrous solution to a person who would naturally oppose it.  And it does so matter-of-factly.  The point is, our perceptions are so far removed from this alien, that our logic will fail us every time.  There is no reasoning with it because in the end, we just can't understand each other.

This misunderstanding may or may not be why the catalyst eventually gives in - its logic can't be applied anymore, much like the perfectly acceptable logic that the earth was flat (at the time) is completely unacceptable now.

EDIT:  the appearance of the catalyst being the boy is an artistic way of adding further discomfort by portraying it as an innocent being.

Modifié par thisisme8, 25 juin 2012 - 10:24 .

[BigglesFlysAgain]

I am sure bioware would jump at the idea of the catalyst being a deliberately incomprehensible intelligence, but again I am just not sure if it was 100% deliberate, since IIRC the final hours app said they removed some of the conversation exploration options to streamline the ending, rather than to make everything more mysterious.

If they were going down the more mysterious route I think they should have made it less subtle, because the starchild seems to have a fairly good "voice" behind what he is expressing, even if he is not very clear, he comes across as vauge rather than struggling to explain. perhaps somewhere between that and the audio exchanges of close encounters would have been better, having "reaperspeak" would have got that across better than his child like voice.

[frypan]

I agree Biggles, its that child again that is the stumbling block. Apart from its tackiness, it just couldnt fill the role of "almighty ancient intelligence" in any awe inspiring way. However I think thisisme8 has a good idea on part of the devs intent, and also hits on the character of the catalyst, no matter what insipid final face was used to execute it.

The concept of the alien intellect also serves as a useful tool of interpretation. At this point I think its good to consider, as the end will not satisfy everyone. We may get the result we want, but struggle with the catalyst due to its role as the focus of thematic dissillusionment. By looking at it as utterly alien we might be able to find a way to overlook that - assuming the end choices themselves offer something that works in that context.

At this point, the ending needs to be worked on to folk's satisfaction by us as much as Bioware. Rather than simply getting upset if the EC has major issues, I think all the very smart people here have a chance to work together to headcanon something out, or decide what can be overlooked regarding what bothers us.

EDIT: And on that note, might call it a night. I won't be playing the game for a bit, at least until I can figure out the Resanthe fix to the BSOD. Folks will have to serve as mine canaries  - just don't cark it if the thing is toxic! But all kidding aside, for those who do get to try it, I hope Bioware comes through for you.

Modifié par frypan, 25 juin 2012 - 12:06 .