5087 réponses à ce sujet

[M0keys]

Hawk227 wrote...

@ Mokeys

I just rewatched the new Stargazer bit and... you might be right. It's all very vague

not anymore! mike gamble to the "rescue!"

https://twitter.com/...770232138301440

Modifié par M0keys, 27 juin 2012 - 04:38 .

[ibench1000lbs]

I never saw this thread before, weird. I just wanted to say, professor, I couldn't agree with you more. Your analysis of the endings are spot on in my opinion. I wish more could see it our way. I did not bother to look at the commnts on this thread. I've heard the 'other side' a million times and I'm exhausted. Thank-you for putting this out there. Bioware needs to see this

[Jorji Costava]

@edisnooM:

When you choose the investigate "crucible" option in the catalyst dialogue, the catalyst says "We first noted the concept for this design several cycles ago." I took this, combined with the catalyst's allusions to earlier attempts at synthesis, to mean that the Reapers had the idea for the crucible all along and were trying to use something like it to produce synthesis. Looking back on this, I think what he means is that "We first observed that organics were trying to build the crucible several cycles ago." That makes more sense; thanks for correcting me on this.

/night.

[Fapmaster5000]

M0keys wrote...

Hawk227 wrote...

@ Mokeys

I just rewatched the new Stargazer bit and... you might be right. It's all very vague

not anymore! mike gamble to the "rescue!"

https://twitter.com/...770232138301440

Gah!  Why would they do-

TROLOLOLOLOLOLOLO!

That's the only explanation.  Add this to the pile burning in effigy:  "Even if you try to act with free will, sacrificing every single thing you must, it still won't matter.  PS:  Artistic integrity."

I see what their vision is, now, and I reject it.  I cannot reject it through any means they have given me, so I choose another:  I will not play.  Shove off, starbaby, and your ghostriding writer-on-board.

[edisnooM]

@M0keys

I should be going to bed but now I have to reply.

That is incredibly infuriating. So I refuse them, OK. But then the next cycle beats them with the thing I refused to use.

Did they figure out something we didn't, because Liara's message shouldn't of had any of the exposition we got at the end, i.e. the Catalyst is King Reaper etc. Maybe they built the Crucible before they had any Synthetics so they were golden.

[Hawk227]

osbornep wrote...

[snip]

The final insult is the catalyst's suggestion that the idea for the crucible was originally developed by the catalyst and his cohorts (whoever they are). The one redeeming feature about the Crucible as a plot device was the idea that it represented the lasting legacy of every past cycle, with which we are now entrusted. Now, even this is taken away.

[snip]

I'm relatively confident that the Catalyst actually confirms that the Reapers had no role in designing the Crucible. He says they learned of its existence a few cycles ago, but there has been improvements, blah blah, but they thought the plans had been destroyed, blah.

However, you're post helped me realize that there's a part of me that likes Refuse because it is a troll. Shepard's speech really embodies much of the themes of the preceding series and allows us to say that the Organics/Synthetics nonsense is just that and that we'd rather die free than bow down to the whims of madman madrobot. The fact that it's portrayed as the worst ending (and the "best" endings doubledown on their Anti-AI nonsense), but accidentally works the best (thematically) is pretty ironic. Like jbauck said earlier, their troll kind of blew up in their face, and the spite factor is pretty strong.

I said last night that much of my issue with the original ending was that it legitimized the Catalyst, despite the likelihood that he's insane. We had to play along, and solve his problem with our dying act. But the EC both confirms that he's insane ("they did not approve [shrug]") and allows us not to play his game (and then tells us the next cycle beat the Reapers, hopefully without the stupid Crucible).

EDIT:

@ Mokeys

That's pretty obnoxious. The good news (for me) is that I rejected their authorial intent in mid March, and they accidentally provided me with a satisfying (term used loosely) interpretation. The stargazer does not say they used the Crucible, therefore they did not!

Modifié par Hawk227, 27 juin 2012 - 04:55 .

[M0keys]

edisnooM wrote...

@M0keys

I should be going to bed but now I have to reply.

That is incredibly infuriating. So I refuse them, OK. But then the next cycle beats them with the thing I refused to use.

Did they figure out something we didn't, because Liara's message shouldn't of had any of the exposition we got at the end, i.e. the Catalyst is King Reaper etc. Maybe they built the Crucible before they had any Synthetics so they were golden.

nope. the crucible was never destroyed. it was literally just floating out there the whole time and the next cycle found it. jessica merizan confirms it in this post.

last post of this locked topic.

http://social.biowar.../index/12763667

Modifié par M0keys, 27 juin 2012 - 04:49 .

[edisnooM]

@Hawk227

Sorry mate, see M0keys post up top.

OK now I really am going to bed.

Modifié par edisnooM, 27 juin 2012 - 04:57 .

[Fapmaster5000]

M0keys wrote...

edisnooM wrote...

@M0keys

I should be going to bed but now I have to reply.

That is incredibly infuriating. So I refuse them, OK. But then the next cycle beats them with the thing I refused to use.

Did they figure out something we didn't, because Liara's message shouldn't of had any of the exposition we got at the end, i.e. the Catalyst is King Reaper etc. Maybe they built the Crucible before they had any Synthetics so they were golden.

nope. the crucible was never destroyed. it was literally just floating out there the whole time and the next cycle found it. jessica merizan confirms it in this post.

last post of this locked topic.

http://social.biowar.../index/12763667

Not to be rude, but Miss Merizan has previously confirmed that the Normandy crashed on Earth and Mars, that EDI was dead and alive in Destroy, and that the Catalyst was lying (but totally not).  I wouldn't trust Miss Merizan to tell me it was raining while we stood in a monsoon, with water rising to my balls.

She seems like a heck of a nice lady, and a pretty damn good cosplayer, but her "lockdown" on story is shaky at best.  Richter 8.5 shaky.

[3DandBeyond]

sharkboy421 wrote...

@malakim2099
Those were the reasons I picked Destroy the first time around as well.  And the EC did little change my mind; it only reinforced that they all sucked. 

And oh how I wish that refuse could allow for a victory, even if it had to be an insanely high EMS. 

For me the same objections stand.  I chose Destroy and felt awful about it, but I picked it because that had been the goal.  Only this time the kid said that not all tech or some such would be destroyed, so I thought well maybe the geth would die, maybe EDI wouldn't-her AI would live somehow.  Nope, her name is on the wall.  I felt like a jerk. But I object to Synthesis and Control and I think Shepard has earned the right to a chance at life. 

My EMS is like 8800.  Not insanely high, but it changes nothing.

[M0keys]

Fapmaster5000 wrote...

M0keys wrote...

edisnooM wrote...

@M0keys

I should be going to bed but now I have to reply.

That is incredibly infuriating. So I refuse them, OK. But then the next cycle beats them with the thing I refused to use.

Did they figure out something we didn't, because Liara's message shouldn't of had any of the exposition we got at the end, i.e. the Catalyst is King Reaper etc. Maybe they built the Crucible before they had any Synthetics so they were golden.

nope. the crucible was never destroyed. it was literally just floating out there the whole time and the next cycle found it. jessica merizan confirms it in this post.

last post of this locked topic.

http://social.biowar.../index/12763667

Not to be rude, but Miss Merizan has previously confirmed that the Normandy crashed on Earth and Mars, that EDI was dead and alive in Destroy, and that the Catalyst was lying (but totally not).  I wouldn't trust Miss Merizan to tell me it was raining while we stood in a monsoon, with water rising to my balls.

She seems like a heck of a nice lady, and a pretty damn good cosplayer, but her "lockdown" on story is shaky at best.  Richter 8.5 shaky.

her story pretty much confirms gamble's. and since we never saw the crucible get destroyed, and the reapers would have no reason to destroy it since they want someone to use it...

[Fapmaster5000]

Hawk227 wrote...

osbornep wrote...

[snip]

The final insult is the catalyst's suggestion that the idea for the crucible was originally developed by the catalyst and his cohorts (whoever they are). The one redeeming feature about the Crucible as a plot device was the idea that it represented the lasting legacy of every past cycle, with which we are now entrusted. Now, even this is taken away.

[snip]

I'm relatively confident that the Catalyst actually confirms that the Reapers had no role in designing the Crucible. He says they learned of its existence a few cycles ago, but there has been improvements, blah blah, but they thought the plans had been destroyed, blah.

However, you're post helped me realize that there's a part of me that likes Refuse because it is a troll. Shepard's speech really embodies much of the themes of the preceding series and allows us to say that the Organics/Synthetics nonsense is just that and that we'd rather die free than bow down to the whims of madman madrobot. The fact that it's portrayed as the worst ending (and the "best" endings doubledown on their Anti-AI nonsense), but accidentally works the best (thematically) is pretty ironic. Like jbauck said earlier, their troll kind of blew up in their face, and the spite factor is pretty strong.

I said last night that much of my issue with the original ending was that it legitimized the Catalyst, despite the likelihood that he's insane. We had to play along, and solve his problem with our dying act. But the EC both confirms that he's insane ("they did not approve [shrug]") and allows us not to play his game (and then tells us the next cycle beat the Reapers, hopefully without the stupid Crucible).

Look a few posts up.  HOW DARE YOU DEFY MAC WALTERS?

Modifié par Fapmaster5000, 27 juin 2012 - 04:54 .

[Fapmaster5000]

M0keys wrote...

Fapmaster5000 wrote...

Not to be rude, but Miss Merizan has previously confirmed that the Normandy crashed on Earth and Mars, that EDI was dead and alive in Destroy, and that the Catalyst was lying (but totally not).  I wouldn't trust Miss Merizan to tell me it was raining while we stood in a monsoon, with water rising to my balls.

She seems like a heck of a nice lady, and a pretty damn good cosplayer, but her "lockdown" on story is shaky at best.  Richter 8.5 shaky.

her story pretty much confirms gamble's. and since we never saw the crucible get destroyed, and the reapers would have no reason to destroy it since they want someone to use it...

I'm not doubting her statement, and it truly doesn't matter to me at this point.  They may as well have confirmed that the Crucible was hiding in an Interdimensional Space Wedgie, and was driven out by angel farts.  I'm simply pointing out that the source for this one was a little iffy, even if the data was correct.

[M0keys]

Fapmaster5000 wrote...

M0keys wrote...

Fapmaster5000 wrote...

Not to be rude, but Miss Merizan has previously confirmed that the Normandy crashed on Earth and Mars, that EDI was dead and alive in Destroy, and that the Catalyst was lying (but totally not).  I wouldn't trust Miss Merizan to tell me it was raining while we stood in a monsoon, with water rising to my balls.

She seems like a heck of a nice lady, and a pretty damn good cosplayer, but her "lockdown" on story is shaky at best.  Richter 8.5 shaky.

her story pretty much confirms gamble's. and since we never saw the crucible get destroyed, and the reapers would have no reason to destroy it since they want someone to use it...

I'm not doubting her statement, and it truly doesn't matter to me at this point.  They may as well have confirmed that the Crucible was hiding in an Interdimensional Space Wedgie, and was driven out by angel farts.  I'm simply pointing out that the source for this one was a little iffy, even if the data was correct.

hey man I'm with you

the entire thing's fubar and totally freaking insane. it's like trying to decipher the metaphors inherent in a random bear's footprints in a puddle of paint.

[M0keys]

btw, I'm a bit psyched to see what the Good Professor has to say about this.

if he saw the same things we saw, and learns about the future crucible use before he summarizes his thoughts... oh man, he's gonna be so pissed about that.

[edisnooM]

Dangit stop making me want to post people. :-)

OK so glow-boy says that they tried to eradicate the Crucible plans in previous cycles, but they just leave a completely intact Crucible just sitting there. WTH

And that is kind of worse, because now they're using the very one that I refused to use.

I thought somehow future Cycles beat the Reapers because they had more time to prepare, but now I really don't know what to think about the Refuse choice.

[Hawk227]

Fapmaster5000 wrote...

Look a few posts up.  HOW DARE YOU DEFY MAC WALTERS?

I edited this into my earlier post, but this thread is flying, so here goes:

@Mokeys


That's pretty obnoxious. The good news (for me) is that I rejected their authorial intent in mid March, and they accidentally provided me with a satisfying (term used loosely) interpretation. The stargazer does not say they used the Crucible, therefore they did not!

Modifié par Hawk227, 27 juin 2012 - 05:00 .

[Fapmaster5000]

M0keys wrote...

btw, I'm a bit psyched to see what the Good Professor has to say about this.

if he saw the same things we saw, and learns about the future crucible use before he summarizes his thoughts... oh man, he's gonna be so pissed about that.

What, you mean the fact that even in the ending where you say, "No" to all of this, it doesn't matter, and everyone dies not because of a final stand, but because you, the player, were too stupid to understand the awesomeness of the ending?

(Whoo, boy, I'm getting tired, and my prior amused irritation with this is starting to turn into my own particular ugly brand of icy fury.  I'd better call it quits, catch some sleep, and get up early before work tomorrow, before I detonate on these forums in a spectacular manner.  G'night, all!)

[M0keys]

Fapmaster5000 wrote...

M0keys wrote...

btw, I'm a bit psyched to see what the Good Professor has to say about this.

if he saw the same things we saw, and learns about the future crucible use before he summarizes his thoughts... oh man, he's gonna be so pissed about that.

What, you mean the fact that even in the ending where you say, "No" to all of this, it doesn't matter, and everyone dies not because of a final stand, but because you, the player, were too stupid to understand the awesomeness of the ending?

that made me mad, too

we're all just little children without any brains or balls and we gotta let the next cycle make the choice for us..yeah, a big slap in the face

crucible being used later on is just salt in the wound

[SpaceXDebris]

Anderson: There is no more retreat!
Shepard: This is it. We fight or we die.
Garrus: If we die, we die together.

Hackett: To the glowy light beam! If we don't make it, everyone everywhere will die.

A few minutes later...

Garrus: Hey guys, sorry I was getting a little tired of all this running... can't the Normandy come and get me?
Shepard: If the Normandy could make it here, we would have taken it directly to the beam.
Joker: No that's ok. I'll pick up Garrus. Anyone else want anything? Coffee?

Harbinger: You guys done yet? Just let me know...

[Hawk227]

edisnooM wrote...

Dangit stop making me want to post people. :-)

OK so glow-boy says that they tried to eradicate the Crucible plans in previous cycles, but they just leave a completely intact Crucible just sitting there. WTH

And that is kind of worse, because now they're using the very one that I refused to use.

I thought somehow future Cycles beat the Reapers because they had more time to prepare, but now I really don't know what to think about the Refuse choice.

I'm gonna go with..... they chose destroy before making any synthetic races that could act as collateral damage. The Reapers got exploded in dark space, and everyone lived happily ever after.

Also, if there are no synthetics to merge with there cannot even be Synthesis. Lawyered.

Modifié par Hawk227, 27 juin 2012 - 05:25 .

[3DandBeyond]

M0keys wrote...


her story pretty much confirms gamble's. and since we never saw the crucible get destroyed, and the reapers would have no reason to destroy it since they want someone to use it...

Just so you know she also was tweeting today that you could have a reunion with Shepard and pals with a smiley face at the end so the person asking would be happy.  More recenlty she is now implying directly that it's all stuff you must imagine because we see the Normandy fly off to find Shepard.  She says we clearly are meant to understand that.  But we all know when someone asks about a reunion they mean in the game and she implied that it would happen in the game.

[Aeyl]

Thanks for the analysis, Professor.
It sums up my misgivings about the endings perfectly.

[edisnooM]

OK this is truly my last post.

I just thought, did the future cycle have to step over Shepard's mummified corpse to activate the Crucible, or did the Reapers at least sweep it aside (or shove it out an airlock for Javik's sake)?

[delta_vee]

Okay, I'm late and duplicative, but here's the textwall:

On Pyrrhus

"So be it."
- Catalyst, Mass Effect 3

We are still left with ashes and madness, but at least the ashes are in neat little piles and the madness has its place.

Both the sledgehammers and the chisels were brought to bear. (I lost track of how many times "synthetic" and "organic" were mentioned, especially in the Synthesis voiceover.) As a mechanism to ensure the intent of the author was conveyed, it was quite the success. The Catalyst is shown for the spinning little logical loop it is, trapped in its memories of an eons-old war. Every possible effort was made to dissuade us from believing the various worst-case scenarios, to convince us we hadn't in fact destroyed the galaxy we meant to save. And it was made as clear as beryllium glass that nothing was a trick, or trap, or ambush.

All three of the previous options were still thematically revolting, though. Control leaves us with arrogant benevolence or inevitable malevolence. Destroy still carries genocide as the price, and that price goes surprisingly unremarked. Synthesis brings us all glowing eyes, skin-mounted circuits, and peace between man and - husk? (Oh, and still carries implicit mindrape as a delicious side dish.) The colors of the Ending-O-Tron are still ugly to my eyes, but the shades are better-matched. All still felt like the answers to Someone Else's Problem, though. It still feels strange to witness the utter conviction behind the synthetic/organic conundrum, despite its distance, its orthogonality, to the rest of the series.

The singular triumph of the Extended Cut is to bring us the fourth choice, the refusal, which many of us asked for.

"It was an honor."
- ELIZA, Deus Ex: Human Revolution

There were four choices at the end of DXHR, as well. Three of them were arguments - answers to the central question asked by the game over and over of what, if anything, should be done about the drive and capacity to make humans into something new. Regulate, Ban, Set Free. All relied inherently on the mechanisms and machinations of established power. All represented an acquiesence to someone else's view, someone else's position, someone else's faith. The men who were those "someone else" were gathered under one (remote) roof; the options were given and explained by a virtual woman who'd helped you in your quest earlier. Her voice was, at least, familiar.

The fourth choice was to bring that roof down upon all their heads. To leave the world outside intact, to leave the decision in the hands of everyone instead of dark men in darker rooms. It was an opportunity to disagree. It was, in my view, the proper culmination of the text. It was also the option DXHR's predecessor and sequel, Deus Ex, tragically lacked at its final triparte crux. We knew how DXHR's world progressed - or rather regressed - and we knew our choice could not, in the end, prevent its course. Thus the final decision could be nothing more than a statement of intent. But still, it had meaning.

There is semiotic power in that refusal. It is an acknowledgement of the limitations of the construction of any problem, and of any attempt to arbitrarily limit the possible responses. It allows for a search for other, newer solutions, outside of the scope of those who frame the question. And it fundamentally admits that no set of answers is complete.

It is a form of humility.

"Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant."
[They make a desolation and they call it peace.]
- Tacitus, Agricola

Terminus* was the Roman god of boundaries and limits. The phrase engraved on the boundary stones associated with him carried the phrase CONCEDO NULLI - "yield no ground".

When the delicately-termed controversy surrounding the endings first emerged, the irruption** seemed to make Bioware not just cringe, but stiffen, and steel their resolve. It was weeks before they acquiesced to change, to improvement. The general gaming media reaction - with a few, quite notable, exceptions - was to decry the specificity of the common complaints and their focus on the Ten Minutes. If you think the endings destroyed the game, they said, then don't play it. Reject the whole work, not just the final moments. There seems to be an idea amongst the burgeoning critical classes that the mere consumer could only express their concerns in the basest of binaries: buy or do not, love or despise, accept or reject.

Once the decision was made to revisit and expand the endings, we were faced with the combination of an open text and open wounds. When Bioware spoke of "closure", I think that the implications of that word should be fully understood. It means not only that the unresolved concerns are laid to rest, but that a boundary, a terminus, can be placed upon the text, and we might evaluate it as a whole.

I am among those who believe the ending could never be salvaged. The thematic kidnapping of the Ten Minutes was too blatant, too problematic, too dissociative. The game should've ended at "best seats in the house", and no investigation options would be enough to satisfy. That it didn't prompted me to reevaluate the entirety of the game - and I found it wanting. That damage is done. And until the EC was released, I couldn't let go, not fully, not until I'd made quite sure they didn't pull some miracle from their collective posteriors.

That they chose to retain that horrid divergence was expected. That I would still be less than satisfied with both the ending and the narrative as a whole was also expected. What that fourth option did, that ability to refuse not only on a textual level but a metatextual one, was to allow me to reject the game itself within the game itself. It was an admission by the creators that, for some, their vision was unacceptable. It was a subtle form of humility, masked though it might be by the distorted, petulant exclamation by the Catalyst at my decision, and it allowed me to act with the finality I desired. I no longer wished to be a part of this story, so twisted and unrecognizable.

I was allowed to draw a line. I took them up on their offer.

* One of the few deities in Roman mythology which had no direct correlation to a Greek equivalent.
** No, not "eruption".