5087 réponses à ce sujet

[NobodyofConsequence]

helloween7 wrote...

NobodyofConsequence wrote...

If I might add something - synthetic life is articifially designed and created, and by implication re-creatable. Each organic life is not. We're weighting uniqueness here, folks, as the criterion for continued existence, perhaps? (leaving the blurring of Shepard/Legion/EDI aside).

While synthetic life might be re-creatable, the Geth are not. The Quarians don't know how they made them in the first place, and they've evolved past their basic programming in the 300 years since they were accidentally born.

New synthetics can be made, but they won't be Geth. 

Likewise, EDI was an unique blend of a VI gone rogue and Reaper tech, shaped by her experiences with the Normandy and it's crew. Another AI might be created, but it won't be EDI.

Don't fool yourself into thinking it's OK to kill all synthetics because they can be recreated. Because 1) it isn't true, and 2) that is tantamount to saying they're not really alive. And since you don't think they're alive to begin with, Destroy can be justified because (for you) it doesn't imply genocide.

For clarity's sake, I posted upthread how I could not countenance the Destroy option for the same reasons you seem to. Take the question as a means to improve my own understanding of the issues, by coming at them from a different angle.

[RenegonSQ]

NobodyofConsequence wrote...

RenegonSQ wrote...

^That uniqueness has to be sacrificed in order to save the galaxy. The game gives you no other choice. If there was one, just like all of us in here, I'd make the other choice.

Order ftw, then. Geez, strikes me as a particularly, well, facist notion, actually. Not pleasant at all. In fact, breaking it down to something that simple really captures my problem with the whole tonal change and the endings. The Catalyst was right, you just get to choose how to continue its work.

Other posts from other members have pointed me towards this thought, but The Catalyst pretty much represents the writers. We have no choice really, we do whatever they put in front of us because it is our only choice. It's sad, but my Shepard had to complete his mission the best way he knew how. Too bad synthetics had to be wiped out.

[drayfish]

@ sH0tgUn jUliA: Thank you for the kindness. And here's to Irena Shepard! May her daughter Selena share her indomitable spirit.
 
 
@ edisnooM: To John Shepard!  Who had felt pain, and fought so others would not have to. 
 
 
And @ RollaWarden! Welcome back! Long time (too long) no post!
 
 

MrFob wrote...
 
If scenes like "hold the line", like Saren's suicide, like Shepards speech before and in the collector base, like his final moments with the LI before the storm, like all of the goodbyes in London (to name just a few) do not establish themes like courage in the face of impossible odds, friendship, moral perceptiveness and yes: the power of hope, then I don't know what else could.

I refuse to believe that what we saw in the EC was the original intent. For all their ramblings about artistic integrity, BW betrayed their own vision with the original cut as well with he extended one. In the end, it came down to business, PR and an attempt to save face at all cost and for that, BioWare and the ME team cheated themselves, not once but twice. That is the real tragedy here.
 
BTW: You said you were traveling. I hope you are not in Australia at the moment because if you are able to write this stuff at 7 o'clock in the morning, you start to frighten me.

 
@ MrFob: Thanks. I appreciate the perspective more than you know.
 
And fear not: I won't be leaving any time soon. With all of the familiar faces and new voices in this thread, things are altogether too sparkling to drift away. Too. Much. Good. Writings... This place is a paradise.
 
As I was saying recently to alleyd, if my mood sounds a little gloomier it's probably just because of the proximity. I wasn't in the forums immediately after the first ending rolled out (I've heard some understandable horror stories), so by the time I wrote my first response to the conclusion my rage was perhaps a little more academic.  Certainly not diminished, but it was somewhat possible to detach from it. At the moment my disappointment at the EC is still painfully fresh, and if I'm honest, that means I'm still a little raw from the heartbreak.  No doubt that has leaked into my posts.

And you got me. Yep, I'm home from travel (finally allowing me to play the EC), but that was me at 7am. With work, my only opportunity to really sink into these posts the way I like to is early morning and late evening. Unfortunately for you poor souls that means that there are times you probably have to suffer the lingering cobwebs of my subconscious as I slip into and drift out of sleep. ...Wait. Did I pray to Batman one time? ...Oh dear.
 
 
@ Ieldra8: I certainly see where you are coming from: galactic civilisation is a weighty price, and one's own personal morality must, of course, be measured against the worth of all life in such a circumstance. 
 
Again, I guess for me it lies in that presumption that anyone – Shepard, some sparked out AI, everyone's favourite Salarian, anyone – has the right to make such a choice. For me that fundamentally taints whatever good can follow.
 
For three games we are invited to investigate the myriad examples of when authority is unwillingly exerted over another species, when decisions of how another sentient being should live their life is unceremoniously stripped away: Indoctrination, the Geth, the Krogan, the horror of the Batarian slave-traders, Protheans misguidedly dominating other species under their rule, the mass slaughter perpetrated by the Reapers. Every race we meet seems to be healing from some kind of atrocity in which their autonomy was maligned or abused, and in every instance – every single one to my recollection – the writers present these acts with all the grim moral ambiguities that such domination evokes. 
 
That's not to say that they are always depicted as outright wrong (one may of course side with the decisions to keep the Krogan sterile; to wipe out the Geth wholesale), but at no point in this universe is it appropriate to say that 'I-will-force-my-will-upon-you-because-I-know-better' ever ends happily. There is always resentment, there is always horror, and the game invites (does not compel, but I would argue encourages) you to fight against the arrogance of such dominion. Until the end. In the end you are directly responsible for making such a choice. After years of wandering the universe sweeping up the wreckage of a hundred such abuses – from the thuggery of pirates, to the persecution of entire species – the game forces you to become the thing you have fought. To me it felt like I was not only becoming a Reaper (embracing at least one of their nut-bag visions of the universe), but I also had to be a bully. 
 
Again, that's not the paradigm for everyone's character, and every players experience; but it was certainly mine. And not to go all cheesy Captain America on everyone, but if there was one thing Tess Shepard hated, it was bullies.
 

Modifié par drayfish, 29 juin 2012 - 12:38 .

[Ieldra]

helloween7 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
The final choice of ME3 is the only choice that's actually a hard choice. All others are no-brainers where the consequences of violating the principles of the "standard heroic template" are negligible. Hmm.....I can empathize.....may I guess that you have trouble seeing your Shepard as a hero after selecting one of the three options? But perhaps.....there is no harder sacrifice than sacrificing your principles for a better future?

But, is it a better future? The way I see it, all of them have serious implications. 

In Control, Shepard is 5 minutes away of becoming as bad as the Catalyst was, because absolute power corrupts absolutely, and so on so forth. 

In Synthesis, the Catalyst is still around (I think; in any case, the Reapers definitely are.) What's to stop it from deciding Synthesis won't work afer all and reinstating the cycle? What is so bad about diversity that it has to be eradicated?!?!?! 

Destroy is Reaper-free, granted, but sets a grim precedent. Does it mean that if (or when) the Krogan get uppity again, it's OK tho kill them all? They're a threat for the Galactic peace as well, aren't they? What about the Rachni? They almost wiped out the Galaxy once already. Better to off them, just in case, don't you think?

And Reject ends in defeat. You stick to your principles of freedom, free will, unity through diversity and "we're in this together" and you lose. But it's precisely in the face of defeat when your morals are tested. So what, being principled and standing by your beliefs is A-OK except when it's inconvenient? Shepard said it best: "I won't let fear compromise who I am". Granted, I would have loved Reject to offer a chance to win (with high EMS and all that), but apparently at BioWare they no longer know how to write that story. 

It is a common misconception that Synthesis eradicates diversity. My impression is that species are still as different from each other as before. I could go on about this but it's beside the point here, since it goes back to the ending premise which I don't like but can accept for the sake of the story. 

About Destroy, the inability to selective target the Reapers is a technical problem. It's like "We're this close to losing the war, and that would kill us all. We could win by nuking the capital of the enemy, but there are also 100k innocents in that city." Would you do it? It's not like "I choose to exterminate the geth because they're a threat".

About Control, the saying "power corrupts" is a cheap way to reconciliate people with their powerlessness, as if that was a virtue. I detest that attitude. If you have power, of course your decisions will sometimes be wrong. Nobody's perfect after all. Of course if you make mistakes the consequences will be severe. But people tend to overlook what good can be done with power, because they tend not to notice if something goes right.

I think that there is a reasonably good future for almost all tastes in the EC endings.

[NobodyofConsequence]

RenegonSQ wrote...

NobodyofConsequence wrote...

RenegonSQ wrote...

^That uniqueness has to be sacrificed in order to save the galaxy. The game gives you no other choice. If there was one, just like all of us in here, I'd make the other choice.

Order ftw, then. Geez, strikes me as a particularly, well, facist notion, actually. Not pleasant at all. In fact, breaking it down to something that simple really captures my problem with the whole tonal change and the endings. The Catalyst was right, you just get to choose how to continue its work.

Other posts from other members have pointed me towards this thought, but The Catalyst pretty much represents the writers. We have no choice really, we do whatever they put in front of us because it is our only choice. It's sad, but my Shepard had to complete his mission the best way he knew how. Too bad synthetics had to be wiped out.

I began a post a few months ago (aborted since I couldn't articulate the concept to my own satisfaction) about how the ending is really a metaphor for the lead team's experience in being unable to finish the game they way they wished to. I think I had Shepard standing in for the creative team, and EA as the Reapers. Presumably the Catalyst is/was someone at executive level within EA. Just a notion, anyways.

Funny how you went Destroy under those circumstances - I have two canon Sheps, male and female, and they went synthesis and destroy/reject respectively (two end runs for her), and I'll tell you, I only went destroy with my FemShep just to see what would happen. My head canon would have involved her cracking out her Omnitool and trying to figure out a way to shut the Catalyst down, with EDI's help.

[TrevorHill]

Ieldra2 wrote...

helloween7 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
The final choice of ME3 is the only choice that's actually a hard choice. All others are no-brainers where the consequences of violating the principles of the "standard heroic template" are negligible. Hmm.....I can empathize.....may I guess that you have trouble seeing your Shepard as a hero after selecting one of the three options? But perhaps.....there is no harder sacrifice than sacrificing your principles for a better future?

But, is it a better future? The way I see it, all of them have serious implications. 

In Control, Shepard is 5 minutes away of becoming as bad as the Catalyst was, because absolute power corrupts absolutely, and so on so forth. 

In Synthesis, the Catalyst is still around (I think; in any case, the Reapers definitely are.) What's to stop it from deciding Synthesis won't work afer all and reinstating the cycle? What is so bad about diversity that it has to be eradicated?!?!?! 

Destroy is Reaper-free, granted, but sets a grim precedent. Does it mean that if (or when) the Krogan get uppity again, it's OK tho kill them all? They're a threat for the Galactic peace as well, aren't they? What about the Rachni? They almost wiped out the Galaxy once already. Better to off them, just in case, don't you think?

And Reject ends in defeat. You stick to your principles of freedom, free will, unity through diversity and "we're in this together" and you lose. But it's precisely in the face of defeat when your morals are tested. So what, being principled and standing by your beliefs is A-OK except when it's inconvenient? Shepard said it best: "I won't let fear compromise who I am". Granted, I would have loved Reject to offer a chance to win (with high EMS and all that), but apparently at BioWare they no longer know how to write that story. 

It is a common misconception that Synthesis eradicates diversity. My impression is that species are still as different from each other as before. I could go on about this but it's beside the point here, since it goes back to the ending premise which I don't like but can accept for the sake of the story. 

About Destroy, the inability to selective target the Reapers is a technical problem. It's like "We're this close to losing the war, and that would kill us all. We could win by nuking the capital of the enemy, but there are also 100k innocents in that city." Would you do it? It's not like "I choose to exterminate the geth because they're a threat".

About Control, the saying "power corrupts" is a cheap way to reconciliate people with their powerlessness, as if that was a virtue. I detest that attitude. If you have power, of course your decisions will sometimes be wrong. Nobody's perfect after all. Of course if you make mistakes the consequences will be severe. But people tend to overlook what good can be done with power, because they tend not to notice if something goes right.

I think that there is a reasonably good future for almost all tastes in the EC endings.

As I've said previously, wiping out 100,000 geth is very different from obliterating them outright, and as they are part of the galactic ecosystem, wiping out that niche would destablize the whole thing. So purely from a pragmatic standpoint, it's hella f**cked up.

[helloween7]

Ieldra2 wrote...

helloween7 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
The final choice of ME3 is the only choice that's actually a hard choice. All others are no-brainers where the consequences of violating the principles of the "standard heroic template" are negligible. Hmm.....I can empathize.....may I guess that you have trouble seeing your Shepard as a hero after selecting one of the three options? But perhaps.....there is no harder sacrifice than sacrificing your principles for a better future?

But, is it a better future? The way I see it, all of them have serious implications. 

In Control, Shepard is 5 minutes away of becoming as bad as the Catalyst was, because absolute power corrupts absolutely, and so on so forth. 

In Synthesis, the Catalyst is still around (I think; in any case, the Reapers definitely are.) What's to stop it from deciding Synthesis won't work afer all and reinstating the cycle? What is so bad about diversity that it has to be eradicated?!?!?! 

Destroy is Reaper-free, granted, but sets a grim precedent. Does it mean that if (or when) the Krogan get uppity again, it's OK tho kill them all? They're a threat for the Galactic peace as well, aren't they? What about the Rachni? They almost wiped out the Galaxy once already. Better to off them, just in case, don't you think?

And Reject ends in defeat. You stick to your principles of freedom, free will, unity through diversity and "we're in this together" and you lose. But it's precisely in the face of defeat when your morals are tested. So what, being principled and standing by your beliefs is A-OK except when it's inconvenient? Shepard said it best: "I won't let fear compromise who I am". Granted, I would have loved Reject to offer a chance to win (with high EMS and all that), but apparently at BioWare they no longer know how to write that story. 

It is a common misconception that Synthesis eradicates diversity. My impression is that species are still as different from each other as before. I could go on about this but it's beside the point here, since it goes back to the ending premise which I don't like but can accept for the sake of the story. 

About Destroy, the inability to selective target the Reapers is a technical problem. It's like "We're this close to losing the war, and that would kill us all. We could win by nuking the capital of the enemy, but there are also 100k innocents in that city." Would you do it? It's not like "I choose to exterminate the geth because they're a threat".

About Control, the saying "power corrupts" is a cheap way to reconciliate people with their powerlessness, as if that was a virtue. I detest that attitude. If you have power, of course your decisions will sometimes be wrong. Nobody's perfect after all. Of course if you make mistakes the consequences will be severe. But people tend to overlook what good can be done with power, because they tend not to notice if something goes right.

I think that there is a reasonably good future for almost all tastes in the EC endings.

The problem I have with Synthesis is... well, I have several problems with Synthesis actually, but in regards to diversity, what this "solution" says is that since conflict between organics and synthetics is inevitable, the solution is to eliminate both synthetics and organics and create a new blended form of life. Therefore, the root of the problem, according to the Catalyst is diversity (two very different forms of life), and the solution is sameness (an amalgamation of the two), because, you know, tolerance and mutual understanding while maintaining your own identity is so passé.

By the same, vein, Krogan and Turians will always be at odds, so the solution is... Brutes!

Modifié par helloween7, 29 juin 2012 - 12:09 .

[RenegonSQ]

NobodyofConsequence wrote...

RenegonSQ wrote...

NobodyofConsequence wrote...

RenegonSQ wrote...

^That uniqueness has to be sacrificed in order to save the galaxy. The game gives you no other choice. If there was one, just like all of us in here, I'd make the other choice.

Order ftw, then. Geez, strikes me as a particularly, well, facist notion, actually. Not pleasant at all. In fact, breaking it down to something that simple really captures my problem with the whole tonal change and the endings. The Catalyst was right, you just get to choose how to continue its work.

Other posts from other members have pointed me towards this thought, but The Catalyst pretty much represents the writers. We have no choice really, we do whatever they put in front of us because it is our only choice. It's sad, but my Shepard had to complete his mission the best way he knew how. Too bad synthetics had to be wiped out.

I began a post a few months ago (aborted since I couldn't articulate the concept to my own satisfaction) about how the ending is really a metaphor for the lead team's experience in being unable to finish the game they way they wished to. I think I had Shepard standing in for the creative team, and EA as the Reapers. Presumably the Catalyst is/was someone at executive level within EA. Just a notion, anyways.

Funny how you went Destroy under those circumstances - I have two canon Sheps, male and female, and they went synthesis and destroy/reject respectively (two end runs for her), and I'll tell you, I only went destroy with my FemShep just to see what would happen. My head canon would have involved her cracking out her Omnitool and trying to figure out a way to shut the Catalyst down, with EDI's help.

Destroy just made the most logical sense to me. Synthesis absolutely disgusts me and goes against the Mass Effect themes more than any other choice in my eyes, and Control just makes you The Illusive Man's protege. I mean... I can't be the only one who feels this way.

I wish I could've made some kind of Renegade choice to convince The Catalyst to kill himself, but you know how that goes...

[NobodyofConsequence]

helloween7 wrote...

By the same, vein, Krogan and Turians will always be at odds, so the solution is... Brutes!

Cf. Cannibals, for that matter. Just letting you know that made me laugh, is all. 

[Ieldra]

@helloween7:
The EC Synthesis doesn't hybridize everyone any more. The two sides are differently affected. Stopping here since this is going OT - if you want details, I posted the new exposition on page 93 of the thread linked in my sig. macroberts also has an excellent post on this here: http://social.biowar...660/95#12855707.

@Trevorhill:
You're invoking bad consequences with no evidence whatsoever that they will happen to justify a visceral repulsion with more rational-seeming arguments. That's methodically unsound.

[NobodyofConsequence]

RenegonSQ wrote...

I began a post a few months ago (aborted since I couldn't articulate the concept to my own satisfaction) about how the ending is really a metaphor for the lead team's experience in being unable to finish the game they way they wished to. I think I had Shepard standing in for the creative team, and EA as the Reapers. Presumably the Catalyst is/was someone at executive level within EA. Just a notion, anyways.

Funny how you went Destroy under those circumstances - I have two canon Sheps, male and female, and they went synthesis and destroy/reject respectively (two end runs for her), and I'll tell you, I only went destroy with my FemShep just to see what would happen. My head canon would have involved her cracking out her Omnitool and trying to figure out a way to shut the Catalyst down, with EDI's help.

Destroy just made the most logical sense to me. Synthesis absolutely disgusts me and goes against the Mass Effect themes more than any other choice in my eyes, and Control just makes you The Illusive Man's protege. I mean... I can't be the only one who feels this way.

I wish I could've made some kind of Renegade choice to convince The Catalyst to kill himself, but you know how that goes...

On Control, I'm pretty sure you're not the only one, no. My HeShep went Synthesis on the basis that it was the one that offered the most potential for beings to be able to self-determinate, without causing loss of life, though I understand where you are coming from on the Destroy front, too (he simply came to accept Legion and EDI as being as alive as himself, and couldn't consequently choose otherwise - curiously, my FemShep sold Legion to Cerberus, and wasn't troubled by these insights concerns).

[Pinax]

NobodyofConsequence wrote...

Seijin8 wrote...

NobodyofConsequence wrote...

You know, I will say one thing in Hudson/Walter's defence - they've driven the creation of a video game that has people intensely examining the types of issues this thread contains. I doubt that was their primary intent, but it's certainly an interesting consequence, and perhaps even ironically appropriate.

Very likely an unintended consequence, but you are absolutely correct in its power to drive people to discuss issues like this.  Very astute.

So, would that justify the endings, then? Would that qualify as 'artistic vision'?

<--- Devil's Advocate

Hello all,

Fans' speculations and imagination used to fill in the plot holes made by the ME3 ending and the EC show mostly the amount of disapointment how an excellent story and 4 years of emotional attachment to the ME series could got irreversibly ruined by 20 mins of play through.

I expressed what I felt on the ending and it's "artistic vision" on a different thread - if anyone would be interested, please have a look:
http://social.biowar...697/95#12849265

To summarize the most important point: as far I know Carpyshyn's vision was closer to Reapers preserving memory of  advanced organics in the Reapers form (this would be the "ascension" in the pinacle of cultural developement), because of dark energy spreading in the universe and no chances of survival for any organics in a cold widened universe. This brings the question what life really is and what's worth more: memory of the whole species or individual lifes and actions (echoes of this sound in Shepard - EDI dialogues in ME3)? Is life only about survival or is there something more worth protecting even at the cost of death?

As for me this would be a true Paragon/Renegate choice:

- Renegate:  agree on humanity's and alien races survival in a Reaper form and giving place for other  not advanced species (yaghs) to "ascend" so that every race in the galactical history could be sth more than just bunch of frozen ashes in the cold universe, or

- Paragon: life isn't about survival only, but about emotions, liasons you make, the people you care and it's worth fighting for, even at a cost of tremendous sacrifices and likely even no hope for the future for the entire species.

...and both options would stick better into the game's style and give place to epic choices, bitter-sweet conclusions and the planned end of the Shepard story. What do you think?

Modifié par Pinax, 29 juin 2012 - 12:47 .

[TrevorHill]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@helloween7:
The EC Synthesis doesn't hybridize everyone any more. The two sides are differently affected. Stopping here since this is going OT - if you want details, I posted the new exposition on page 93 of the thread linked in my sig. macroberts also has an excellent post on this here: http://social.biowar...660/95#12855707.

@Trevorhill:
You're invoking bad consequences with no evidence whatsoever that they will happen to justify a visceral repulsion with more rational-seeming arguments. That's methodically unsound.

            First of all, I'm assuming that the "bad consequences" you're referring to are the geth being removed. And please don't turn my arguments into a poor strawman because you don't understand them. I will explain them in more detail. In an ecosystem, Every species has its role to play, with a very shaky balance. If everything stays the same, then all is well. But if parameters change, bad things happen. For example, if a new predator is introduced, and it has no natural predators, then It will completely destabilize the population levels of the other species, since its prey has no defense against it. And if an animal is intoduced which eats the fallen foliage from trees in a dry forest, then there will be no shrubs for brush fires which clear space for new trees to grow. The only time this is negated is when technology allows a species to overcome the processes which govern natural selection, putting it on top of everything else in the environment, i.e. humans. But on a galactic level, each species has roughly the same technological capalities, so the they are all brought back down to a niche based "ecosystem" of a society. Granted, the roles they play won't be predator-pray relationships, but more along the lines of economic, scientific, and defensive roles. Things of that nature. So the Geth, in the short time sine they've joined galactic society, have already taken up at least one niche in helping the Quarians acclimate to their new environment. So the point is, wiping out a people will have more long reaching ramifications than just their demise.

P.S. I was trying to have a friendly discussion. Please don't insult my intelligence.

[SHARXTREME]

There are million problems with synthesis, like I have said in another topic.
Synthesis is..lets just say.. It's not wanted by anyone, not even the geth.
It isn't evolution either. But I suspect that's the intended Bioware ending "that will be talked about for years to come".

Ultimately it's not about merging sintetics and organics, nor evolution.
It's about right (of individual) to choose and it's presented to you by a "character", faulty AI that already forced his choice upon species we now know as Reapers.

That whole ending is not Science Fiction, it's some kind of compromise on the surface, but mostly giving in to Starchild's line of faulty logic.
This ending doesn't solve anything, it just rewrites everybody by making mass genocide in full scope of that words.

So the real question that you face at the end is your own right to choose for everybody, or at all.
And since that question even arises, you CAN NOT choose, and that character(that is by definition more powerful then you, since he is giving you the choice) also can't give you that choice.

Whole ending is completely false to the story. Doesn't matter what you choose, you will choose wrong because the person who is giving you the choices is faulty by definition. It's not by any means "grey" ending.
1. Control the Reapers. Many have tried, it's their bait, quest for power. All have failed. Some would argue that good method with good intentions could override that, but no. WRONG

2. Destroy the Reaper and geth. And right after you helped geth to evolve. The first species that is not inherently violent and who are your allies against the Reapers and leaving you without knowledge that you could take from geth that would prevent another reaper situation. WRONG.

3. Synthesis. no problem solved/more and bigger/unknown problems arise. Morally and ethically with no chance to defend, JUST WRONG.

4. Refuse. Inaction. Logically only course of action given the unlogical situation , but WRONG.

Whole ending is (written) wrong, because there is no choice. You came to destroy the reapers or to be destroyed, no shades of grey there, no compromise, no multiple choices. You're dealing with faulty AI, a mistake, so you must correct that mistake, but not by making another one and destroying the geth..

And biggest wrong of all wrongs is for the reapers(who collectively think you're inferior) is to give any choice at all. Especially the choice to destroy tham. Why? They are needed to solve the problem.

The situation is then like this: You need catalyst to destroy the Reapers, but the catalyst is the one broken AI who created the reapers in the first place(against their will). So what you need to do is to destroy the catalyst AND the reapers, or to trick him, but you're not presented with that choice because the choice is given to you by main antagonist, and in the same time a tool to defaeat itself, a faulty AI.
So you just sit there and watch, you have no free will.
Any choice that is made is not made by Shepard, it's made by Starchild. Letting you do it, or doing it itself it's the same thing. Bioware killed Shepard even before that "Marauder Shields".

[NobodyofConsequence]

Ieldra2 wrote...

About Control, the saying "power corrupts" is a cheap way to reconciliate people with their powerlessness, as if that was a virtue. I detest that attitude. If you have power, of course your decisions will sometimes be wrong. Nobody's perfect after all. Of course if you make mistakes the consequences will be severe. But people tend to overlook what good can be done with power, because they tend not to notice if something goes right.

I think that there is a reasonably good future for almost all tastes in the EC endings.

I dislike Control because it lacks humility, and I don't mean the forelock-tugging type, but the acknowledgement of one's own limitations. We humans have a few intrinsic cognitive foibles in the way we model our own judgement, and in the ME Universe, other species seem to share them.

Control isn't inherently bad, agreed, but it does effectively lop branches off the collective decision tree, which again, in the ME Universe is depicted as something fraught with peril. Even god-like AI seems to get it wrong, after all. Control is the very thing which led to the Reapers in the first place. Argument by exageration, perhaps, but IMO, something to be extremely wary of.

[the slynx]

Ieldra2 wrote...

About Control, the saying "power
corrupts" is a cheap way to reconciliate people with their
powerlessness, as if that was a virtue. I detest that attitude. If you
have power, of course your decisions will sometimes be wrong. Nobody's
perfect after all. Of course if you make mistakes the consequences will
be severe. But people tend to overlook what good can be done with power,
because they tend not to notice if something goes right.

I know this is a separate conversation you’re having with someone else, but I want to jump in here regardless.

I don’t think ‘power corrupts’ is only meant to imply that powerful people become corrupted; it’s also meant to imply that thirst for power itself corrupts. (Thus I don’t think it’s fair to argue that the phrase is meant to extoll the virtues of the powerless, although perhaps some do imply that - perhaps erroneously, since, as you imply, lack of power is less a virtue than a circumstance. Regardless, the second meaning rebuts the first claim, at least as I’m familiar with the phrase’s usage.) I’d also argue that, even if it’s not what the phrase utterer means, that it’s not just power that corrupts so much as the mores and culture that often accompany power that are corrupting, as in those Zimbardo experiments with student prisoners and guards and so on.  I guess in this case, neither really applies here: Shepard isn’t striving for supreme guardianship, and given that no one’s assumed the role previously, there’s no culture attached to this specific form of power to date, and I suppose Shepard’s free to write his/her own.

Anyway, I’m answering this not to undermine your point - it doesn’t - but because I don’t mean to cop a defeatist attitude when I invoke the phrase, as I am liable to do.

Also, why do you believe that synthesis doesn't reduce diversity? I got the impression it does, at least in part because of how peaceful galactic civilisation is portrayed as being, post synthesis... um, patch.

Modifié par torudoom, 29 juin 2012 - 12:56 .

[TrevorHill]

torudoom wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

About Control, the saying "power
corrupts" is a cheap way to reconciliate people with their
powerlessness, as if that was a virtue. I detest that attitude. If you
have power, of course your decisions will sometimes be wrong. Nobody's
perfect after all. Of course if you make mistakes the consequences will
be severe. But people tend to overlook what good can be done with power,
because they tend not to notice if something goes right.

I know this is a separate conversation you’re having with someone else, but I want to jump in here regardless.

I don’t think ‘power corrupts’ is only meant to imply that powerful people become corrupted; it’s also meant to imply that thirst for power itself corrupts. (Thus I don’t think it’s fair to argue that the phrase is meant to extoll the virtues of the powerless, although perhaps some do imply that - perhaps erroneously, since, as you imply, lack of power is less a virtue than a circumstance. Regardless, the second meaning rebuts the first claim, at least as I’m familiar with the phrase’s usage.) I’d also argue that, even if it’s not what the phrase utterer means, that it’s not just power that corrupts so much as the mores and culture that often accompany power that are corrupting, as in those Zimbardo experiments with student prisoners and guards and so on.  I guess in this case, neither really applies here: Shepard isn’t striving for supreme guardianship, and given that no one’s assumed the role previously, there’s no culture attached to this specific form of power to date, and I suppose Shepard’s free to write his/her own.

Anyway, I’m answering this not to undermine your point - it doesn’t - but because I don’t mean to cop a defeatist attitude when I invoke the phrase, as I am liable to do.

Also, why do you believe that synthesis doesn't reduce diversity? I got the impression it does, at least in part because of how peaceful galactic civilisation is portrayed as being, post synthesis... um, patch.

           I'm glad that you mentioned the Zimbardo experiments. The result of those experiments showed that power corrupts. And there are influences such as socioeconomic background and cultural upbringing that effect it, but the main factor is human nature. We are designed, through evolution, to dominate the competion when given the chance. I would say alpha male, but women can also hold power in society. So when you have absolute power, you have to fight against your nature but, in the case of honest and good people, not your nurture. So it doesn't matter what your outlook on using that power is, you will always be fighting your genes, so to speak. And that is why power corrupts. You might not even realize your doing it, but subconsciously it's what you're designed for.

[Tallestra]

Ieldra2 wrote...

It is a common misconception that Synthesis eradicates diversity. My impression is that species are still as different from each other as before. I could go on about this but it's beside the point here, since it goes back to the ending premise which I don't like but can accept for the sake of the story. 

That the basic difference between us, the concept of diversity.
David Brin Uplift series, 7 (!) orders of life
Oxygen organic, Hydrogen organic, Machines, Quantum, memetic, Retired Order and Transcendent.
For me synthesis destroyed diverse kinds of life, not the diversity of species. It's like you'll take reptiles and amphibian and turn them into mammals. They would still looks mostly like frog or lizard, but these orders of animals will be gone. Mammals have number of advantages, so I guess it's good in your book. But I firmly believe that all kinds of life have right to exist and determine their destiny.

You know, maybe eventually humanity and other races would become hybrids on their own, or maybe some of them would become some sort of energy beings, or maybe some would just fade away. The synthesis took away this choice from everyne. As I said before EDI and Geth were living beings for me before, I do not need synthesis to treat them as such. 
And its only part of why I oppose synthesis.  

Anyway, I understand that we won't be able to convince each other, but maybe I made it more clear what I mean by destroying diversity. 

[AloraKast]

I think I finally pinpointed the main reason for my inability to accept the ME3 endings. This is all probably nothing new but am glad that I finally was able to put my finger on it.

Throughout the series we have options both in how we play Shepard, thus determining his alignment/outlook, as well as having a direct impact on the events of the story, shaping the galaxy as we do so. There was always choice for all of us; those that wanted to go all ruthless and renegade, can do so and those who wanted a more forgiving and paragon route can choose that too, as well as any combination in between.

There is a good chance of us having to kill Wrex on Virmire, but… BUT there also exists a possibility of not having to kill him. Even with the Virmire Survivor, we get to decide who that will be. Likewise, when it comes to the Suicide Mission through the Omega-4 Relay, there is a good chance we will lose someone from our core crew… BUT there also exists the POSSIBILITY of avoiding that tragic fate IF we go out of our way to upgrade the Normandy and do every single one of the Loyalty Missions.

I think that is why I am ok with Mordin’s arc on Tuchanka. Because there is a choice; we either let him sacrifice himself, kill him ourselves… or, provided Maelon’s data was not saved and Eve dies, there is a chance of us talking him down and he go off to choice the Crucible project. Personally, as much as I hate to let him go, I also understand that it’s a crowning moment for him as a character and I simply cannot refuse him that moment. But that is the thing, you have a choice here and each one of us has to make that choice for ourselves, depending on our views. I also think that is why I have a problem with Legion’s arc on Rannoch, because there is no way to save him, he will always sacrifice himself, no matter what. Same thing with Thane – in addition to the poor treatment of the character, that is – he will always die in that hospital bed, despite him telling us clearly that that is not how he wanted to leave this world in ME2.

So for three games we have made all these choices of who lives and who dies… and we had that option, that one possibility of refusing to give in, refusing to accept what we are presented with at face value… “In the darkest hour, there is always a way out.” That is what has been hammered home for us time and time again.

And yet, when it really comes down to it, we are presented with these three “choices” each one more unacceptable than the one before. What the EC did right was introduce the reject option… but the problem is they didn’t go far enough with that option. Yes, absolutely, have it so that our rejecting of the Catalyst’s philosophy carries a great risk with it, dooming the galaxy and continuing the cycle… but what Bioware forgot was the very foundation of the games they have made thus far… “In the darkest hour, there is always a way out.” They forgot that possibility, that one chance. I truly believe that if you went out of your way, completing all or very nearly all of the side missions, getting your EMS as high as it can be, gathering all the forces of the galaxy together in one united front that all your hard work… and stubbornness too, the refusal to give in, ought to pay off.

I have seen time and time again people arguing that Reapers cannot be defeated conventionally. But you know what? They can! Because this is a game, more importantly, this is Mass Effect. We have been conditioned through the course of three games that while there exists this seemingly undefeatable threat, there also exists hope, however slim and improbable, but it’s always there.

And now, all of a sudden, we are presented with the endings which tell us something completely different. That no matter how hard you work, how many races you unite, how much you prepare… you simply cannot win and have to adhere to the flawed logic of a crazed AI. Huh? If the EC introduced the reject option, there should have been two possible effects of that option. 1) The one we see in game (though really it should have been expanded upon, actually shown that one last brave attempt to overcome those insurmountable odds, but ultimately failing) and 2) provided you had enough EMS, enough resources, enough whatever, there should have existed that possibility of actually defeating the Reapers and saying FU to the Catalyst. Yes, the cost of that would be great, casualties indescribable… but that one chance for the survivors and future generations to live free of the Reaper threat once and for all.

I think there came a point where Bioware threw their hands up in the air when contemplating the vast complexity of varied choices of three games, getting overwhelmed and lost in that complexity and thus deciding to box us in into one of the three choices. And now with the EC, they forgot the basic rules of the Mass Effect trilogy; “In the darkest hour, there is always a way out.”

Their efforts were cut short, whether by time constraints or budget or whatever else have you. And thus the story and, indeed, this fantastic trilogy has suffered greatly for it. And as we try to come to terms with this jarring turn of events, I don’t know about you, but for me Mass Effect no longer stands for perseverance in the face of insurmountable odds, refusal to conform to the views of others, strength through diversity and that no matter what our differences, there is always a way for us to work together and overcome anything, that “united we can break a fate once set in stone”. The lesson of Mass Effect 3 and, thus, of the entire trilogy suddenly became that, no matter how hard you try, you simply cannot overcome adversity but rather have to conform to the views of others. And that is why I cannot accept the endings of ME3 – because I was under the impression I was playing a totally different game, with totally different themes and message.

I will leave you with a video and lyrics of a beautiful video made in honour of the Mass Effect story, or at least what I thought it stood for, as it seems quite fitting here. The very soul of Mass Effect:

Reignite

Hope can drown lost in thunderous sound
Fear can claim what little faith remains

But I carry strength from souls now gone
They won't let me give in...

I will never surrender
We'll free the Earth and sky
Crush my heart into embers
And I will reignite...
I will reignite

Death will take those who fight alone
But united we can break a fate once set in stone

Just hold the line until the end
Cause we will give them hell...

I will never surrender
We'll free the Earth and sky
Crush my heart into embers
And I will reignite...
I will reignite.

EDIT: Formatting...

Modifié par AloraKast, 29 juin 2012 - 04:53 .

[flemm]

Ieldra2 wrote...
About Control, the saying "power corrupts" is a cheap way to reconciliate people with their powerlessness, as if that was a virtue. I detest that attitude. If you have power, of course your decisions will sometimes be wrong. Nobody's perfect after all. Of course if you make mistakes the consequences will be severe. But people tend to overlook what good can be done with power, because they tend not to notice if something goes right.

That's not really what's meant by the idea that power corrupts. It doesn't imply that powerlessness is good, or that power cannot be wielded in a just and beneficial manner. What it means is that power is easy to abuse and that some type of balance or restraint is needed to prevent that from happening.

This is true from a practical (not only moralistic) point of view, and it's why one might prefer, for example, to live in some sort of constitutional republic than a dictatorship. Can a dictator or monarch act in a benevolent manner? Sure, but it would be stupid to count on that. So, I think disliking control because the new guardian will have too much unchecked power is a reasonable point of view.

Modifié par flemm, 29 juin 2012 - 05:10 .

[Pinax]

flemm wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
About Control, the saying "power corrupts" is a cheap way to reconciliate people with their powerlessness, as if that was a virtue. I detest that attitude. If you have power, of course your decisions will sometimes be wrong. Nobody's perfect after all. Of course if you make mistakes the consequences will be severe. But people tend to overlook what good can be done with power, because they tend not to notice if something goes right.

That's not really what's meant by the idea that power corrupts. It doesn't imply that powerlessness is good, or that power cannot be wielded in a just and beneficial manner. What it means is that power is easy to abuse and that some type of balance or restraint is needed to prevent that from happening.

This is true from a practical (not only moralistic) point of view, and it's why one might prefer, for example, to live in some sort of constitutional republic than a dictatorship. Can a dictator or monarch act in a benevolent manner? Sure, but it would be stupid to count on that. So, I think disliking control because the new guardian will have too much unchecked power is a reasonable point of view.

But I think this would be valid only if an AI that Shepard becomes could have inclination to gain more power and use it against the ones she/he "guards" instead of just serve it's function. Please note that the Control Shepard ceases to be a human, so any references to Zimbardo or power inlfuencing humans may not be valid here. The AI would be driven by purpose and the purpose may change into a dangerous one if variables are altered (like during the mission with the rogue VI on ME2 which killed the entire crew as the station was "contaminated" and needed to "purified").

[flemm]

Pinax wrote...
But I think this would be valid only if an AI that Shepard becomes could have inclination to gain more power and use it against the ones she/he "guards" instead of just serve it's function. Please note that the Control Shepard ceases to be a human, so any references to Zimbardo or power inlfuencing humans may not be valid here. The AI would be driven by purpose and the purpose may change into a dangerous one if variables are altered (like during the mission with the rogue VI on ME2 which killed the entire crew as the station was "contaminated" and needed to "purified").

Sure, I'm not trying to say Control has to be interpreted in a certain way. Just addressing the idea of "power corrupts," and pointing out that it's not about power being bad per se, or about how power is impossible to use wisely. It's more about power needing to be managed properly or tempered to avoid abuse and tyranny.

Modifié par flemm, 29 juin 2012 - 09:26 .

[helloween7]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@helloween7:
The EC Synthesis doesn't hybridize everyone any more. The two sides are differently affected. Stopping here since this is going OT - if you want details, I posted the new exposition on page 93 of the thread linked in my sig. macroberts also has an excellent post on this here: http://social.biowar...660/95#12855707.
 

Most likely because at BioWare someone finally realized that you can't rewrite the DNA or incorporate new DNA on software.

Yeah, the details blurred on me a little here (I played all the endings, one after another, and I only payed any real attention to Destroy and Reject, TBH) but my point stands; Synthetics are rewritten to think like organics and organics are effectively hybridized (and all get melded together into a giant Reaper hive mind, apparently).

As I said, hybridization and the elimination of difference (a theme that still remains, in some form) is only one of the many moral problems I have with Synthesis. 




I think in my current ME2 playthrough I will kill the Geth heretics. Rewriting them no longer looks like the lesser of two evils. I don't think I can stomach it, knowing what's to come.



EDIT: Ugh. It's late and my English is beginning to slip a little.

EDIT 2: Make it a lot.

Modifié par helloween7, 29 juin 2012 - 10:18 .

[Caenis]

drayfish wrote...

 
Huh. Well that was a hell of a thing.
 
 
Sorry for the absence, I've been travelling and was unable to get anywhere near the game for a few days. The desire to see the result of the new conclusion was overwhelming, but frankly I was more eager to get back in here – to this thread and it's marvellous discussion. And I am stunned by the level of intelligent discourse and evaluation that has been going on in here since the Extended Cut rolled out. New voices, new views (both for and against the endings), some phenomenal alternate endings and reactions to the final product. I am truly glad to see that some people have been able to make peace with the new endings, and even to enjoy them (although I must say I share the pain of those who remain unsatisfied). 
 
Once again I am reminded of how extraordinarily lucky I am to be part of this conversation; and frankly, I am very impressed – in fact, in awe – that everyone has managed such exquisite insight and descriptive prose, because to be honest, my visceral response has not been so cogent, nor so objectively rational. Indeed, my reaction to the end was considerably more heated... So fair warning, this is going to get mighty hyperbolic.  I've not edited it for content since first sitting down to spill it all out (thus I apologise for the moments in which I reiterate what's already been said; at the time I had not yet read everyone else's responses...)
 
 
So I downloaded; I loaded; I played. There she was: Tess Shepard, alive again and still fighting. Right where my mind had left her, blocking out the original, hurried conclusion like some suppressed traumatic memory. It was like I was back in a dream. She stormed through the Cerberus base, returned to the Normandy to feed her fish one last time, then sprinted toward the beam, saw some horror, farewelled the man who had been her mentor, and readied herself to die. Then the elevator rose and I felt it flood back in: the rising panic that all my numb confusions were just going to spool out all over again.
 
I cannot express the glee I felt at finding there was a fourth option. 
 
We – we did it, I thought. The fans and Bioware connected. They saw what was wrong! They felt the pain. They never wanted to put their audience through all that!  Force those who despised the endings down a cattle grid of moral slaughter. Suddenly it was clear that they were going to offer a new way: perhaps not necessarily a betterway, but new. For those who remained unnerved by the endings, here was the alternate path; the means to preserve what had meant most to them about their Shepard, and to still defeat the big bad. To stand up and glare it down. To maybe take some hits, but to never acquiesce, not aligning ourselves with the enemy and embracing their psychosis.
 
And so, in spite of the emotional devastation of her last experience tottering on that spot, Tess rallied. She rose: a resounding, towering figure. A silhouette amidst the blaze of ruination around her. Damn right we will not bend, she seemed to be saying. We will not lose faith. We'll fight on, in a universe of cruel, dispassionate violence and hate, to forge a path of unity and reassert our indomitable will. We will not be terrified and bullied into submission to some sacrifice of virtue. You cannot lay us on an altar and cut the very heart out of our spirit.
 
And so, after months of being haunted by this moment, I got to tell Haley Joel Osmont to screw off. Got to tell him right to his smirking little face that his endless, cyclical scheme was madness, and that he was but an unhinged monster on a witless rampage. No matter what his original intentions had once been (I imagined that I got to say), he was nothing but a ghoul now, a husk devoid of purpose, bringing darkness and pain wherever his shadow was cast. A mockery to the very life he was trying to 'preserve'.
 
And so, Tess Shepard selected the fourth option, and I readied myself to watch the Reapers feel what happens when the downtrodden bite back...
 
But instead, the whole goddamn universe ended. 
 
Was wiped out. 
 
I saw a galaxy of life get flamed away in an instant – even after the cause of all that devastation had agreed with me that his ridiculous plan no longer worked. I had shown the villain the flaw in this scheme; he had admitted that his solution was no longer acceptable; but he decided to go and do it anyway. What the hell?  The gasoline was already spilled. Why waste it? Like a frenzied child he lit it up because I refused to obey, because I wasn't willing to perpetuate his narrow vision of existence.
 
In honesty, this has got to be the most heartbreaking meta-textual moment of narrative I have ever experienced; final proof that the whole promise of individuated interaction that drew me to the Mass Effect universe in the first place (and that was repeated ad nauseum in Bioware's marketing for half a decade) was a complete misinterpretation on my behalf. This was not my story. This was never my universe. I fell in love with these characters, but I was never fighting beside them. I really was just looking through the window as they talked amongst themselves, imagining what I might say if I was there. I never talked Samara out of killing herself; I never helped Thane reconnect with his son; I never tempted a traumatised biotic to reconnect with the world; I certainly never stared down a Krogan. I pressed buttons. I stared at a screen. Watched polygons dance.
 
For months I've been hearing critics who decry the fans that have voiced their displeasure at the ending say 'Why are you getting so upset? It's just a game'. And not only could I not agree with this sentiment, but on many levels, I literally couldn't even understand what such a sentiment meant. It wasn't just a game. It was a world in which you were invited to live: to participate in and influence. It was a reactive agent, and you were –  Well, you were any other term than the 'Catalyst'. 
 
Or it was.
 
I guess the final message of Mass Effect, the message its creators went to extra pains to communicate, was that yes: it was just a game. There was a structure and there were parameters, and unless you agree to the win-scenario in its absolute moral vacuum, you forfeit your right to success.
 
Because I refused to play according to the rigid, objectionable rules that Bioware laid down in the final moments of the game, I watched a galaxy of beauty and grace annihilated, and got to acutely feel that it was all my fault. Hell, I was even told I failed by the companion tasked with cataloguing my fight for the ages.
 
I tried to play by my rules (the rules I had been led to believe up until that point were at the heart of the experience), and was punished for it. Foolishly, I tried to hold on to the beliefs that I thought made human beings more than automatons.  Critical Mission Failure. You lose. What a f---ing jerk I turned out to be. 
 
So Merry Christmas universe: I tried to respect the splendour of individuality and doomed us all to hell.
 
Instead I got to watch the galaxy spin on until someone else was willing to come along and push the button I couldn't. Either way, the only way life perpetuates is through an act of fear and moral compromise. Life will go on, but the standard of that life is irrelevant. The principles upon which it is now founded are genocide, domination, or the arrogance of compelled mutation. Three games, all leading up to a final thesis of moral futility. 
 
And to add the final insult, it all still gets credited to 'The Shepard', even though the thought of such an eventuality literally killed her.
 
A whimper, not a bang. 
 
Yay nihilism.
 
 
To give them credit, Bioware did ultimately let me reject the three endings that I continued to see as repellent, but the price was that I was no longer permitted to exist in their world anymore. Indeed, they vowed to torch it all down rather they let me spend another second there: 'The universe ends now. You can see your own way out.'
 
As the credits rolled and I saw the creators names pass by all I could feel is that it would have been nice if they had have let me know all this three games ago: that I, and my dorky little ideals, weren't welcome.  Bioware disabused me of my misconception that I was ever part of their vision. I guess I was just fuel for that purging fire that the Catalyst wanted to unleash upon the galaxy – too mired in my primitive hopes and faith to exist in his new galactic order. 
 
But I guess if I hadn't taken the ride I would never have enjoyed such rich characters, and I certainly would never have met all you wonderful folks on this thread.  

And it's true: you can't grieve for something if you didn't love it first.
 
 
Goodbye Mass Effect.
 
 
Tess Shepard
 
N7 officer and first human spectre.
 
Born on Mindoir on April 11, 2154.
 
She lived through the Mindoir slaver raid and proved her valour in the Skylian Blitz.
 
She saved the Citadel and Galactic Council against Reaper attack, and survived a journey through the Omega 4 Relay to stop the Collector incursions.
 
She helped cure the Gennophage, honouring the wishes of one of its creators, and was a pivotal figure in negotiating the burgeoning peace between the Geth and the Quarians.
 
She amassed the largest unified defence force in the history of the universe.
 
Killed in action. 
 
Bled to death on the bridge of the failed Crucible project.
 
She fought, but all hope was lost.
 

That was so well written...just describing Tess' experience with the Refusal helped me to understand more of why people are upset. People are unable to reject the Star Child's logic, they are forced to accept it. I guess to me I thought the Star Child was already willing to allow things to change. It really is too bad Shepard couldn't run out of the Citadel and add an extra message to the next people or sent a message to Liara (LI or Friend) to add her audio to say, The Star Child has turned out to be a rogue V.I, add this to the future message, giving future generations a new way to prepare and defeat this V.I an alternative option. Of course we can always pretend that is what Shepard did. That after the Star Child left, as I read it from AloraKast "people made a scrambling last attempt to defeat the reapers" (not an exact quote XD), while Liara in her own little Side Quest, added Shepard's audio from her message (as remember Shepard was able to talk to Hackett so why not be able to send a message). Where Shepard tells them what to expect and to say there was no way she could expect it and to prepare future civilizations. Liara evades the reapers to bury her message somewhere, and the world has a chance to save it with the information Shepard gives them.

Of course hehe I agree with the Star Child's logic, and would rather do what I want to do right now with the choices as I saw them as possibly inevitable/inevitable within the world of Mass Effect (Parallel Universes which Edi mentioned, the logic in the world of Mass Effect thus can make sense in this Parallel Universe, where she mentions something about 1+1=3 in some universes, I think that was a hint for us to be more open minded), but for the people who found it flawed (and they have all listed very valid reasons for it), I feel like giving them that viable option to reject it, would have been awesome and can of course still be written in as part of their own character's story, even if it didn't happen in the actual game. (That's what I do all the time both with books and in games!). I give myself the creative license to add what I ned to the ending , did that with the original, and I added some extra in this one.
I feel like at the end of the day though us Gamers have completely become dependent on relying on the Creators to spoon feed us every possible outcome. We don't want to have to "Imagine" what it would be like, we want those predetermined ideas we have to be accurately visualized and expressed for us. And I am not saying that is good or bad, wrong or right just that so many people reject having to imagine what happened "after the screens went dark".


Regarding this story, from ME1 I actually got the feeling that the Reapers weren't entirely evil. There is this conversation (right around the time where Wrex is about to get killed or not killed) where I am talking to the Reaper "Nazara"/Sovereign whoever he is, and I'm like woah...maybe...there is more to this story, he kept talking about I would not understand, something that gave me the impression that it wasn't really about 'hurting us' and that they had something greater in mind. In ME2 Harbringer (who I just guessed was a servant of the Star Child) kept saying "We are your salvation" and I kept wondering WHY. In ME3 everything made sense when I met the Star Child, and the EC it made even MORE sense. That the Star Child was a Rogue V.I. who thought this was our salvation (anyone remember Mythology where the God(s) lose faith in humanity and destroy them?), except this was like ancient mythology with a Science Fiction twist (Shermer's Last Law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shermer's_last_law ). The game also plays with Transhumanism/Singularity: http://en.wikipedia....sm#Spirituality (Synthesis ending) and has this idea of "Techno-Utopia: http://en.wikipedia....ical_utopianism )  Like through Technology (Technological Rapture) we will achieve Utopia, which I guess is better than assuming that an invisible person will grant rapture as you can actively work towards it, but there is much we don't know, and Technology could fail or maybe not, we just don't have enough information---this game played a lot with those ideas, and it hinted at that throughout the game. Conversations with Legion, Edi, Sovereign. I had the idea that our enemy may not be the enemy, and that there may have been some truth to what the Indoctrinated were saying, except they were slaves to the Star child's will, and only Shepard (being special) was able to reject the Star Child's law and activate the 1 of 3 options to succeed in the Star Child's reign. 

• The way  I saw it, was Control, Shepard rejected the Star Child's vision and her goal was to right the wrongs of what the Star Child had done. It is also possible Shepard becomes equally corrupted as the Star Child did. I figured if "Synthesis" is as inevitable as the Star Child says then it would happen under Shepard's reign regardless. I liked Control because I like the idea of Transcending thoughts and the human body and Shepard gets to do what I want so  desparately do in this life. With the Control option I also feel Shepard's crew or Love Interest can seek Shepard out the way Shepard sought the Star child out (reminds me a little bit of that Morrigan DLC, where the warden seeks Morrigan out except I imagine it would have a different atmosphere). And get closure in their own life. I ALSO feel that Liara could still have a Shepard II (baby Shepard) that I/we didn't know about the night before or last meeting
• Synthesis I liked as I have this sort of geeky hope (one alternative of many and just a thought not a belief) that a Techno Utopia, Human+, world where we are all interconnected the way Legion was while still having the ability to think separately, taking our collective individual knowledge and bringing it back full circle into the whole (as my theory is we separated from the whole, to gather information, as like I think Legion mentioned 3 humans can be in a room and have 6 different opinions, but also be able to reimerge with the whole), and the idea that we do look to technology to extend our lives and all that, and I also get this feeling that with Synthesis Liara and Edi know what Shepard did and sacrificed, like the story is passed down through their essence so she's aware.
• Destroy I also liked. I liked that humanity learned that you could set aside differences and stand together to defeat a threat. And I also liked the idea that just like with the aboves, it could mean anything. Humanity might learn never to build A.I intelligence having grown a fear of them, or they might interpret the A.I deaths everywhere as a GREAT sacrifice like Legion's sacrifice, and respect them the same as Shepard--though considering Human records unlikely. OR they may build A.I again but instead with safe guards, never making them 'too' advanced and sticking only to genetic modifcations and implants.
• I have already mentioned Refusal and what might have/could have happened after the lights went out. Where Shepard could contact Hackett or Liara and tell her the Star Child is really a Rogue A.I that has gone mad, and to give details of what she has discovered from it and to say that it took the form of a child she saw die in her dreams, and that it may have infilitrated her mind or indoctrinated. I can imagine when the lights went out Shepard calls in on the comm and relays the information to them and asks them (her crew) if she should go with Synthesis, Destroy, OR Control. Be like so should I Refuse his option and have you go on that mission and hide that thing, or should I succeed the Star Child and become God/sacrifice myself/or sacrifice all robots--Edi how do you feel about this? HAHA. Then Shepard either had Liara go hide the message, the whole battle ground gives one last ditch effort giving Liara and the Normandy time to escape and hide the message before they die, and then Shepard dies with the Citadel as the Reapers invade (or maybe the defeat the Reapers). OR Shepard after talking to her crew goes back and takes her 3 options again. That's the way it plays out in my head .

...And this is what I have done with every story and every ending, even before ME3 happened with books and games. I have always added the "Extra" what happens after the lights to the story go out. I've let my imagination go wild, and you know I think now we have been given enough/more information to DO that, whereas before we didn't really have much/enough information to make those decisions, and so had to come up with Theories and create vastly different outcomes in our heads.


I guess I don't need everything to be explained to me, and I can except that just because we don't understand something doesn't make it necessarily magic, it just makes it unknown. At the end of the day My Shepard is not as focused on how the Crucible works just that it will work and do what it should do without killing the whole world, that's all I need to know. But I can understand how people could need that extra information, and have the time to say: Look, I know people are killing each other outside those windows, and the more we talk the more people will die but screw that and tell me EXACTLY how this Crucible works etc. etc. to me though that's extra information that I really didn't need and could accept that. Haha I really don't need ever little detail to be spelled out exactly, I just need Closure, with logical endings and extra endings being a Plus but not absolutely needed. (It would be no surprise that while I am no Twilight fan that I'd accept the idea of Sparkly Vampires if they gave it to me .)



EDITED: for clarification XD

Modifié par Caenis, 29 juin 2012 - 11:18 .

[Caenis]

AloraKast wrote...

I think I finally pinpointed the main reason for my inability to accept the ME3 endings. This is all probably nothing new but am glad that I finally was able to put my finger on it.

Throughout the series we have options both in how we play Shepard, thus determining his alignment/outlook, as well as having a direct impact on the events of the story, shaping the galaxy as we do so. There was always choice for all of us; those that wanted to go all ruthless and renegade, can do so and those who wanted a more forgiving and paragon route can choose that too, as well as any combination in between.

There is a good chance of us having to kill Wrex on Virmire, but… BUT there also exists a possibility of not having to kill him. Even with the Virmire Survivor, we get to decide who that will be. Likewise, when it comes to the Suicide Mission through the Omega-4 Relay, there is a good chance we will lose someone from our core crew… BUT there also exists the POSSIBILITY of avoiding that tragic fate IF we go out of our way to upgrade the Normandy and do every single one of the Loyalty Missions.

I think that is why I am ok with Mordin’s arc on Tuchanka. Because there is a choice; we either let him sacrifice himself, kill him ourselves… or, provided Maelon’s data was not saved and Eve dies, there is a chance of us talking him down and he go off to choice the Crucible project. Personally, as much as I hate to let him go, I also understand that it’s a crowning moment for him as a character and I simply cannot refuse him that moment. But that is the thing, you have a choice here and each one of us has to make that choice for ourselves, depending on our views. I also think that is why I have a problem with Legion’s arc on Rannoch, because there is no way to save him, he will always sacrifice himself, no matter what. Same thing with Thane – in addition to the poor treatment of the character, that is – he will always die in that hospital bed, despite him telling us clearly that that is not how he wanted to leave this world in ME2.

So for three games we have made all these choices of who lives and who dies… and we had that option, that one possibility of refusing to give in, refusing to accept what we are presented with at face value… “In the darkest hour, there is always a way out.” That is what has been hammered home for us time and time again.

And yet, when it really comes down to it, we are presented with these three “choices” each one more unacceptable than the one before. What the EC did right was introduce the reject option… but the problem is they didn’t go far enough with that option. Yes, absolutely, have it so that our rejecting of the Catalyst’s philosophy carries a great risk with it, dooming the galaxy and continuing the cycle… but what Bioware forgot was the very foundation of the games they have made thus far… “In the darkest hour, there is always a way out.” They forgot that possibility, that one chance. I truly believe that if you went out of your way, completing all or very nearly all of the side missions, getting your EMS as high as it can be, gathering all the forces of the galaxy together in one united front that all your hard work… and stubbornness too, the refusal to give in, ought to pay off.

I have seen time and time again people arguing that Reapers cannot be defeated conventionally. But you know what? They can! Because this is a game, more importantly, this is Mass Effect. We have been conditioned through the course of three games that while there exists this seemingly undefeatable threat, there also exists hope, however slim and improbable, but it’s always there.

And now, all of a sudden, we are presented with the endings which tell us something completely different. That no matter how hard you work, how many races you unite, how much you prepare… you simply cannot win and have to adhere to the flawed logic of a crazed AI. Huh? If the EC introduced the reject option, there should have been two possible effects of that option. 1) The one we see in game (though really it should have been expanded upon, actually shown that one last brave attempt to overcome those insurmountable odds, but ultimately failing) and 2) provided you had enough EMS, enough resources, enough whatever, there should have existed that possibility of actually defeating the Reapers and saying FU to the Catalyst. Yes, the cost of that would be great, casualties indescribable… but that one chance for the survivors and future generations to live free of the Reaper threat once and for all.

I think there came a point where Bioware threw their hands up in the air when contemplating the vast complexity of varied choices of three games, getting overwhelmed and lost in that complexity and thus deciding to box us in into one of the three choices. And now with the EC, they forgot the basic rules of the Mass Effect trilogy; “In the darkest hour, there is always a way out.”

Their efforts were cut short, whether by time constraints or budget or whatever else have you. And thus the story and, indeed, this fantastic trilogy has suffered greatly for it. And as we try to come to terms with this jarring turn of events, I don’t know about you, but for me Mass Effect no longer stands for perseverance in the face of insurmountable odds, refusal to conform to the views of others, strength through diversity and that no matter what our differences, there is always a way for us to work together and overcome anything, that “united we can break a fate once set in stone”. The lesson of Mass Effect 3 and, thus, of the entire trilogy suddenly became that, no matter how hard you try, you simply cannot overcome adversity but rather have to conform to the views of others. And that is why I cannot accept the endings of ME3 – because I was under the impression I was playing a totally different game, with totally different themes and message.

I will leave you with a video and lyrics of a beautiful video made in honour of the Mass Effect story, or at least what I thought it stood for, as it seems quite fitting here. The very soul of Mass Effect:

Reignite

Hope can drown lost in thunderous sound
Fear can claim what little faith remains

But I carry strength from souls now gone
They won't let me give in...

I will never surrender
We'll free the Earth and sky
Crush my heart into embers
And I will reignite...
I will reignite

Death will take those who fight alone
But united we can break a fate once set in stone

Just hold the line until the end
Cause we will give them hell...

I will never surrender
We'll free the Earth and sky
Crush my heart into embers
And I will reignite...
I will reignite.

EDIT: Formatting...

You know once again I have never thought about that, the message of hope. I still have a feeling of hope with these new EC's even the Refusal ending, but I think that's because of mental addition and rationalization, where I've added/filled in enough mentally with my imagination that I'm like oooo so there is still hope after all (if not downright Utopia ;-) ! ! ! ) it's also possible that that "Techno-Utopia" is destroyed like Atlantis was , there are no guarantees, but there's always the hope for a guarantee . 

I also got the feeling when playing the game that they had been rushed the first time, and when they made an effort to add an ending that there may have been a little resentment and "Rushing" on this one too, like the slideshows, as they felt like they had to hurry up and feed the angry mob, followed by that feeling of resentment as they did receive a LOT of hate and while they tried to be humble about it...it's kinda hard when people are reacting so violently. I think there could have been a better and more respectful way to have gotten Bioware to change this ending, but hopefully Gamers now know more of what they want and look for in an ending, and Bioware learned from this experience as well, to learn how to express their story while still giving us something that makes us feel satisified...that or they learned that "You can't please everyone, best we can do is give it our best within the time constraints and budgets that we have, and let those who appreciate it appreciate it, and accept that everyone will not be pleased/happy." As was mentioned else where they probably did hope to rely on fanbase loyalty when they rushed out a bit, it's hard not to believe that they don't depend a little bit on that when it comes to taking risks etc., I also assumed people would react with the same loyalty I did albeit a little disillusioned.

I am somewhat glad people did react though because it just shows that we are vocal and we do expect something more from someone who has always given more, but also I hope that we don't become 'too entitled', or at least not in a rude way, more in constructive way vs. Passionate Hatred way as I feel that mindset could poison the company that we love. We could have peacefully petitioned Bioware and gave constructive feedback, etc. etc. maybe the EC's would have not had some 'middle finger/resentment' in it like in the Refusal option, but there's still hope, we just have to imagine what happened after the lights went out.