5087 réponses à ce sujet

[edisnooM]

I wanted to say interesting posts on hard/soft SF magic etc. Very good read.

@deliphicovenant42

In support of this thought I can definitely say that while watching the "Best seats in the house" scene, and thinking I was just moments away from credits, the furthest thing from my mind was "I wonder why the Reapers created the cycle?" Sure ending there would have still left the ending rushed and not totally satisfying given the build up over the years, but the last thing I was looking for at that moment was for someone to explain anything else about the Reapers.

Agreed.


Also I was thinking again about the Catalyst conversation (a maddening exercise) and I realized something else that doesn't add up for me. The Catalyst says he used his creators to make the first Reaper and that they did not approve.

How did he do this? The Catalyst says that he is the combined intelligence of all the Reapers, and the Reapers seem to be his power base and strength. So how exactly did he manage to create the first Reaper, without a Reaper army to create it? Maybe I'm just getting really nitpicky but it just seems like another thing they threw at us without really having a good explanation for it.

And I've seen several people mention the Reapers as a mixture of Synthetic and Orgnanic as though they were mixing harvested organics and synthetics together. I was fairly certain it was laid out that each Reaper was a single race, and while they are a Organic/Synthetic combination that was not a result of using different goo types in the construction.

Also I was under the impression that the Reapers saw synthetics as pawns to be used and discarded, and I thought something was said along the lines in ME1 or 2 that they found the Heretics worship disgusting and would destroy them once they were done with the cycle. But now apparently they harvest them too? And if the each Reaper is a single race, where exactly does the organic component come from for the Synthetic Reapers?


Edit:
.....Running out of song ideas. OK, 'This is Gallifrey, Our Childhood, Our Home' from Doctor Who Season (or Series) 3  www.youtube.com/watch.

Modifié par edisnooM, 01 juillet 2012 - 11:03 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

drayfish wrote...
 
I must admit (and this will surely come as no surprise) that everything the Catalyst does and is provide precisely that same rupture of immersion for me. There would have probably been ways to do it (I marvel at how effortlessly you whipped up that Soft Sci-Fi narrative soufflé for Synthesis, CulturalGeekGirl – you are so very dangerous), but even in the Extended Cut, that foreshadowing and narrative establishing simply was not there.
 
It's as 'magic' as my ******-weak card tricks for third grade show-and-tell. I know you didn't pick a seven, Mrs Dallywater. Thankfully your lies didn't doom civilisation. ...Unless...? 

No. No they didn't.

It's a gift... and a curse.

I'm serious. I was trying to prepare an argument at one point about why the Destroy beam doesn't make sense either - clearly anything that would destroy sentient synthetics would also damage other high-end computer systems. I mean, where would the logical cutoff be? How would the beam discriminate? It doesn't make any sense...

...unless there's a particular hierarchical file organization system that is an emergent property of synthetic sentience. If the beam was some sort of virus designed to target only systems that posess that particular type of file organization, then it would make sense that only sentient AIs would be effected.

Damn.

I blame early exposure to Star Trek and a younger brother for this madness. Eventually I became able to answer any question he could ask; if not through actual science, then though a plausible enough pseudoscience, or something mythological. By the age of ten I was able to explain away any plot hole that could be spotted by a five-year-old, and by fifteen I could explain away any plothole that could be spotted by a clever ten-year-old.

I think this lead to an early and instinctive ability to distinguish between stuff that was properly explained, stuff that was adequately hinted at, and stuff that required my rather unusual ability to conjure rationalization from thin air. It also made me realize that once one has stepped away from complete realism and the hardest science fiction, it's possible to come up with a "sensible" explanation for everything. The question is whether or not the author has done it for you, and planned it early enough, or whether you had to make it up for yourself. Because, again, I have never encountered any plot device for which it's impossible to technobabble the maguffin.

That said, I think a lot of people here mistook my purpose in "explaining" the green beam. I was explicitly not saying that my technobabble would have worked for anyone, I was just saying that it was possible to come up with a scientific-ish explanation, that the green beam wasn't "impossible" or "magic," it was just poorly explained. It would have been possible to explain it well using technology that is by no means beyond the pale for a series with that kind of ambient tech level - they just didn't do that. Because they obviously came up with the endings at the last minute, and thus didn't have the time to go back through the story and seed in the appropriate exposition.

And even after plausibility was established, the plausibility and necessity of the limitations we're stuck with would also have to be established to make the ending feel less arbitrary. To exposit a SciFi premise this tortured and specific would have required at least two games worth of natural-seeming exposition.

My point is that practically anything CAN be explained in a way that makes it seem both plausible and logical within the tech of a given world, but to do that requires a lot of advanced planning. If you don't have the ability to do that kind of advanced planning, don't make the crux of the situation a technological system and its limitations... do a Star Trek, and make it about a moral decision, or a social problem, and couch the solution within known social structures, rather than unexplained technological maguffins. Universally understood social principles and the myriad ways we've tried to manipulate them throughout history are great, because they don't require reams of exposition. That's why you can have a far future SF show like Star Trek where most of the maguffins are powered by handwavium; because the final choice isn't about the handwavium, it's about people.

I'll probably be back with more about the hard/soft SF continuum later. So much awesome stuff in this thread.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 01 juillet 2012 - 11:16 .

[KitaSaturnyne]

Since I have nothing to contribute, I just want to be counter-productive here and say "technobabble the macguffin" sounds dirty.

Carry on.

[edisnooM]

@KitaSaturnyne

Well thanks, now I can't not think of it from that perspective.

[KitaSaturnyne]

@Mani Mani

You're welcome. If you like, we can leave you on your own to technobabble Tali's macguffin.

[delta_vee]

@CGG

Thing is, I'm not sure I would have accepted any explanation for the Crucible's effect. It's not so much the "magic" designation - or rather, I'm not sure it fits any more than the SF equivalent of "sufficiently advanced technology".

It's religious.

The idea, the image, the very concept of a transformative wave percolating throughout the universe (well, galaxy) sounds (to me anyways) like Rapture, like salvation and condemnation "in the twinkling of an eye". Which fits well enough with the subtext of Starbrat's deity status, but also relegates any semi-kinda-plausible explanation to the realm of trying too hard on the part of the author.

As for hard/soft SF, my particular (usual) dividing line is that while soft SF may cloak itself in demi-plausibility, hard SF is marked by an explicit path from here to there, from now to then*. It gives a certain heightened sense of possibility to the proceedings.

If you don't have the ability to do that kind of advanced planning, don't make the crux of the situation a technological system and its limitations... do a Star Trek, and make it about a moral decision, or a social problem, and couch the solution within known social structures, rather than unexplained technological maguffins.

Therein lies the whole of the problem with the Crucible, frankly. They already had the requisite moral/social structure for the solution - uniting the galaxy. I'd much rather have had the game include a collection of searches for various means to enhance our fighting power (much like the ship upgrades worked in ME2) than the pieces-of-the-superweapon plot we received.

[MrFob]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

I'm serious. I was trying to prepare an argument at one point about why the Destroy beam doesn't make sense either - clearly anything that would destroy sentient synthetics would also damage other high-end computer systems. I mean, where would the logical cutoff be? How would the beam discriminate? It doesn't make any sense...

...unless there's a particular hierarchical file organization system that is an emergent property of synthetic sentience. If the beam was some sort of virus designed to target only systems that posess that particular type of file organization, then it would make sense that only sentient AIs would be effected.

That would work rather well for ME actually, given that all sentient AIs we know of (the reapers, EDI and the individualized geth) are derivatives of reaper code. How the transmission of a virus manifests itself in a bright red beam remains anyone's guess though. Hm, I wonder what happened to Eliza back on Jump Zero. Probably blown to bits in the initial reaper attack though.

My point is that practically anything CAN be explained in a way that makes it seem both plausible and logical within the tech of a given world, but to do that requires a lot of advanced planning. If you don't have the ability to do that kind of advanced planning, don't make the crux of the situation a technological system and its limitations... do a Star Trek, and make it about a moral decision, or a social problem, and couch the solution within known social structures, rather than unexplained technological maguffins. Universally understood social principles and the myriad ways we've tried to manipulate them throughout history are great, because they don't require reams of exposition. That's why you can have a far future SF show like Star Trek where most of the maguffins are powered by handwavium; because the final choice isn't about the handwavium, it's about people.
bly be back with more about the hard/soft SF continuum later. So much awesome stuff in this thread.

To play devil's advocate here for a moment, isn't that exactly what the ME3 endings tried to do? Focusing on the moral aspect of the choice rather then the scientific explanation is exactly what the writers intended. Of curse, it doesn't help that there is not that much difference int he outcome in the EC. It is one of the reasons, even the open original cut could be seen as better because at least it leaves us to draw our own conclusions from the choices rather then shoving a fairytale ending on a choice that should by all logical accounts have at least some sort of downside.


EDIT: Oh, maybe one more word about science vs. "magic" as the solution to problems. Science as a solution to an acute problem is always questionable in terms of "realism", even in hard scifi IMO. In real life, the evolution of science is a very slow and intricate process. Ideas take years to develop, be tested, controlled, reviewed and finally published and we are just talking about one step in a chain of events here that leads to applicable solutions. The ad hoc science that is usually displayed in scifi must be that way in order to work with the dramaturgy of a story but it is fiction. I have yet to encounter a piece of scifi where the time frames are anywhere close to realistic (the tv show I mentioned earlier is very guilty of this as well). So are we still talking about hard scifi if the principles are feasible but the methodology doesn't quite match? I'd argue that we can, given that in fiction, everything ultimately has to bend to the narrative goals (within reason of course). Nonetheless, it further blurs the boundaries IMO and in a way, it can also create a continuum of science vx. magic, where the two intermingle to form a hybrid narrative device.

Modifié par MrFob, 02 juillet 2012 - 01:11 .

[Phaedros]

answer = $$$ unfortunately...

[CulturalGeekGirl]

MrFob wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
My point is that practically anything CAN be explained in a way that makes it seem both plausible and logical within the tech of a given world, but to do that requires a lot of advanced planning. If you don't have the ability to do that kind of advanced planning, don't make the crux of the situation a technological system and its limitations... do a Star Trek, and make it about a moral decision, or a social problem, and couch the solution within known social structures, rather than unexplained technological maguffins. Universally understood social principles and the myriad ways we've tried to manipulate them throughout history are great, because they don't require reams of exposition. That's why you can have a far future SF show like Star Trek where most of the maguffins are powered by handwavium; because the final choice isn't about the handwavium, it's about people.
bly be back with more about the hard/soft SF continuum later. So much awesome stuff in this thread.

To play devil's advocate here for a moment, isn't that exactly what the ME3 endings tried to do? Focusing on the moral aspect of the choice rather then the scientific explanation is exactly what the writers intended. Of curse, it doesn't help that there is not that much difference int he outcome in the EC. It is one of the reasons, even the open original cut could be seen as better because at least it leaves us to draw our own conclusions from the choices rather then shoving a fairytale ending on a choice that should by all logical accounts have at least some sort of downside.

No, this isn't what the endings are doing at all.

What the ending does is provide three technological solutions to social problems, rather than three social solutions to social problems. Thus the weird limitations of the tech (Destroy kills all synthetics, Synthesis targets everything without prejudice) become more important than the actual social or moral questions involved.

This arbitrary technology also serves to artificially conflate and connect these moral questions in a completely arbitrary and illogical way.

There are two problems we're trying to solve here, and there are three solutions to both.

Problem A is the problem that we all actually care about: the Reapers are killing everyone. Now, we have three ways to stop this: We can destroy them all, we can control them, or we can make them nice.

Problem B is the problem that the narrative is demanding that we care about: Synthetics and Organics don't like each other. We have three possible solutions to this: kill all the synthetics, just let everybody keep living together and hope peace will continue, or make everybody hybrids,

What the inexplicable, badly concieved, poorly constructed, completely nonsensical technology is doing is linking these solutions together in combinations. If we were just solving the social problems from a moral perspective, we could mix and match. It is the magical handwavium maguffin machine that says "No no, if you want solution A to problem 1, you must also use solution A to problem 2, even if you don't agree with that solution to that problem. They are linked."

Why are they linked? They're linked because handwaved technology says so!

Edit: sorry if this sounds a little snippy, I was dumb and looked at the main boards today. Why do I always go there? I guess I'll never know. It's like a kind of torture...

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 02 juillet 2012 - 01:18 .

[SHARXTREME]

generalleo03 wrote...

@drayfish

Also, sorry if I'm late to the party, but I disagree with you that ME is about Compromise. Renegade Shepard doesn't have to compromise anything. She actually likes all 3 options, it's just about which she likes best. Paragon Shepard is the only one that get's the shaft. I think the point of Mass Effect can be described by another great epic science fiction film, "Spaceballs":

"Evil will always triumph because good is dumb"

This is where I can't agree at all.

Ending would fit as nice "reward"  for Renegade Shepard by superficial inspection,  but it's not intended that way. He followed his selfish, and oportunistic style, made trouble when he could, killed Mordin from behind because he didn't wan't the possibility to face bigger enemy later, same with geth, etc, he calculated, gambled, betrayed  and he came to face the Catalyst. And to go in history as Legend, same as Paragon Shepard. 
That would be someones first impression, but you need to play the ending TIM scene as Renegade to see that Bioware never did or intended to separate Paragon and Renegade Shepard in final goal for both characters.
They're both dumb and weak in front of the Catalyst. Puppets.

Only significant core diference is that Paragon Shepard is driven by hope and perseverance, and Renegade Shepard is driven by fear and opportunity. But as it now stands, Shepard needs both sides of a coin at their best to suucced against Catalyst.

When Star Trek gets mentioned, and what CulturalGeekGirl mentioned is that in that universe everything can be explained. That aside for a second.
What Star Trek has done extremely well is good-evil-logic.moral discussion,  they have questioned viewers/readers judgement on many levels. 
Species in Star Trek(and to some extent in Mass Effect) are mostly defined by one distinctive, defining characteristic. Klingones/Krogans are violent. Romulans/Salarians are manipulative. Volus/Ferengi are profit driven. Humans are jack.of-all-trades, but mostly highly adaptive and simply better then we really are. Idealistic vision.
Reapers/Borg are destructive. etc.
They are not directly the same in both series, but they are similar.
What is missing from Mass Effect is Vulcans-like "highly" logical species.
In Star Trek main enemy for humans was logic, so we were in constant wars, hunger, powerty etc. Once we embraced better logic everything got better. I'm not talking about Vulcan type of logic .
Evolving Human logic and rigid Vulcan logic are in constant conflict.

For example vulcans are in that group that doesn't even touch on things that are not scientificaly proven beyond any doubt. Better said, they are not trying to bend or expand the society and physics laws, they want to act perfectly under established laws. Things change, but laws stay the same,
  
Star Trek Humans on the other hand are in that group that will bend/expand the laws to incorporate new findings/persons in them, because history tought them: More rigid laws, More resistance. More resistance, more bad things. and misguided theories. Things change, laws must change accordingly.

Both philosophies can only benefit from each other, so the conflict is shifted on the next level.
And that level is what separates Paragon and Renegade Shepard- Method..
There is something very gray about method, the way someone deals with things naturally or otherwise. In mass effect both methodes are equally valid for Shepard, but not for Illusive Man in comparison,
In Star Trek they are not equally valid. 
Direct Quest with conflict for selfish benefits is short sited and generally leads to war and doom of individual, group or entire species or it can lead to power before domming the entire species... 
Indirect Quest without conflict, or by avoiding conflict when possible,  but also for selfish benefits is much better long term and leads to peace and prosperity.

That is the core difference. So what about moral? As one Maquis officer in DS9 argued:
-"Borg assimilate, but Federation also assimilates entire species and nobody informs them they have been assimilated"
That is where even highest moral standard gets the question of method. Is there a method that leads to level where you as observer/reader cannot distinguish who is really good and who is really evil patient strategist when the situation is the same.
On the surface you could just look for the signs for what  method is used by someone, but the looks of things can deceive. In that regard Bioware did great job in not separating the endings for Paragon and Renegade Shepard(with intention or mot doesn't matter), but where they have screwed up is to intrude in the game as themselves and artistic integrity wrapped up in the holo-body of unbendable Catalyst. 
 


  

[MrFob]

Nah, that's ok, looks like I misunderstood you earlier. With that point I can agree.

[NobodyofConsequence]

SHARXTREME wrote...

Ending would fit as nice "reward"  for Renegade Shepard by superficial inspection,  but it's not intended that way. He followed his selfish, and oportunistic style, made trouble when he could, killed Mordin from behind because he didn't wan't the possibility to face bigger enemy later, same with geth, etc, he calculated, gambled, betrayed  and he came to face the Catalyst. And to go in history as Legend, same as Paragon Shepard. 
That would be someones first impression, but you need to play the ending TIM scene as Renegade to see that Bioware never did or intended to separate Paragon and Renegade Shepard in final goal for both characters.

I have to say, my Renegade FemShep was not like this in the slightest. She simply believed the ends justifies the means, at least where something as big as the Reapers are concerned, and would do whatever she felt was necessary to get the job done. This included lying and killing if necessary. She didn't believe that she had the luxury of 'morality' when allowing her feelings to over-ride her judgement could lead to the death of billions. Not saying that was right, not at all, but it's what I was RPing with her. The fact that she was continually having to set aside her feelings left her short-tempered and impatient at times, which is where certain Renegade interrupts came in...

On the whole AI issue, I just wish to point out that EDI and the Geth (sounds like a garage band) awakened to intelligence before they were given Reaper code. The code, oddly enough, seems to have given them enough awareness to make the leap to genuine self-knowledge. I'm intrigued by the ramifications of this vis the Reapers and the Catalyst's control over them, but I suspect it's probably another plot hole.

Re Science Magic: has anyone invoked Arthur C Clarke yet: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguisable from magic"? If not, then, umm. Yeah. Invoked.

[edisnooM]

@NobodyofConsequence

Sorry, I'm pretty sure I remember someone invoking that already. :-)

Also interesting point about the Catalyst's control over EDI and The Geth (One Night Only!).

Modifié par edisnooM, 02 juillet 2012 - 02:23 .

[generalleo03]

SHARXTREME wrote...

generalleo03 wrote...

@drayfish

Also, sorry if I'm late to the party, but I disagree with you that ME is about Compromise. Renegade Shepard doesn't have to compromise anything. She actually likes all 3 options, it's just about which she likes best. Paragon Shepard is the only one that get's the shaft. I think the point of Mass Effect can be described by another great epic science fiction film, "Spaceballs":

"Evil will always triumph because good is dumb"

This is where I can't agree at all.

Ending would fit as nice "reward"  for Renegade Shepard by superficial inspection,  but it's not intended that way. He followed his selfish, and oportunistic style, made trouble when he could, killed Mordin from behind because he didn't wan't the possibility to face bigger enemy later, same with geth, etc, he calculated, gambled, betrayed  and he came to face the Catalyst. And to go in history as Legend, same as Paragon Shepard. 
That would be someones first impression, but you need to play the ending TIM scene as Renegade to see that Bioware never did or intended to separate Paragon and Renegade Shepard in final goal for both characters.
They're both dumb and weak in front of the Catalyst. Puppets.

Only significant core diference is that Paragon Shepard is driven by hope and perseverance, and Renegade Shepard is driven by fear and opportunity. But as it now stands, Shepard needs both sides of a coin at their best to suucced against Catalyst.

When Star Trek gets mentioned, and what CulturalGeekGirl mentioned is that in that universe everything can be explained. That aside for a second.
What Star Trek has done extremely well is good-evil-logic.moral discussion,  they have questioned viewers/readers judgement on many levels. 
Species in Star Trek(and to some extent in Mass Effect) are mostly defined by one distinctive, defining characteristic. Klingones/Krogans are violent. Romulans/Salarians are manipulative. Volus/Ferengi are profit driven. Humans are jack.of-all-trades, but mostly highly adaptive and simply better then we really are. Idealistic vision.
Reapers/Borg are destructive. etc.
They are not directly the same in both series, but they are similar.
What is missing from Mass Effect is Vulcans-like "highly" logical species.
In Star Trek main enemy for humans was logic, so we were in constant wars, hunger, powerty etc. Once we embraced better logic everything got better. I'm not talking about Vulcan type of logic .
Evolving Human logic and rigid Vulcan logic are in constant conflict.

For example vulcans are in that group that doesn't even touch on things that are not scientificaly proven beyond any doubt. Better said, they are not trying to bend or expand the society and physics laws, they want to act perfectly under established laws. Things change, but laws stay the same,
  
Star Trek Humans on the other hand are in that group that will bend/expand the laws to incorporate new findings/persons in them, because history tought them: More rigid laws, More resistance. More resistance, more bad things. and misguided theories. Things change, laws must change accordingly.

Both philosophies can only benefit from each other, so the conflict is shifted on the next level.
And that level is what separates Paragon and Renegade Shepard- Method..
There is something very gray about method, the way someone deals with things naturally or otherwise. In mass effect both methodes are equally valid for Shepard, but not for Illusive Man in comparison,
In Star Trek they are not equally valid. 
Direct Quest with conflict for selfish benefits is short sited and generally leads to war and doom of individual, group or entire species or it can lead to power before domming the entire species... 
Indirect Quest without conflict, or by avoiding conflict when possible,  but also for selfish benefits is much better long term and leads to peace and prosperity.

That is the core difference. So what about moral? As one Maquis officer in DS9 argued:
-"Borg assimilate, but Federation also assimilates entire species and nobody informs them they have been assimilated"
That is where even highest moral standard gets the question of method. Is there a method that leads to level where you as observer/reader cannot distinguish who is really good and who is really evil patient strategist when the situation is the same.
On the surface you could just look for the signs for what  method is used by someone, but the looks of things can deceive. In that regard Bioware did great job in not separating the endings for Paragon and Renegade Shepard(with intention or mot doesn't matter), but where they have screwed up is to intrude in the game as themselves and artistic integrity wrapped up in the holo-body of unbendable Catalyst. 
 


  

Thanks for replying.  You've presented some good ideas here.  I can understand where you are comming from, I think.  But I don't agree.  You're basic premise is that Renegade/Paragon shepard have the same goal and differ only in method.  At an immediate level, IE what is the next thing to do, I agree, but this is not the end game.  The universes' Renegade and Paragon Shepard want to create are very different.  For instance, does Shepard value diversity at all?  If yes, then he/she would have saved the council in ME1, if not, then he wouldn't.  This isn't a difference in method, its a difference in goal.  The immediate threat was to stop sovereign, and yes both renegade and paragon do accomplish this goal, but what they want afterwards are very different things.

This is where I differ from you.  Renegade Shepard *could* find the catalysts speach opportunistic and worthy.  It would be selfish to kill all synthetics to stop just the reapers.  After all, organics would survive.  Selfish and opportunistic.  One could make a similar argument for control and synthesis.  The problem is that paragon Shepard cannot in good conscience agree with any of these 3 choices because they are all abhorent, whereas a Renegade Shepard *could*.

The reality is that Shepard is a moral/motivational vacuum.  He/She has no set morals or motivations beyond the immediate.  The long term goals and desires of Shepard are projected from the player.  The "Why did I stop that kid in afterlife?" can only be answered by the specific player that did it.  But, based on the choices presented we can infer a few things about that player's motive based on the outcomes they seem to desire.  While it is true that renegade shepard is not exactly "evil", he certainly could be, especially if viewed in a certain light.  Paragon isn't exactly "good" either.  But the goals seem to suggest renegade shepard would commit a heinous act with the right motivation, whereas paragon would not.  This is why I say "Evil will always triumph because good is dumb".  At a high level, this is what the ending tells me.  Renegade's *could* be happy here, paragons cannot.

Also, as a special bonus option, the only real choice for a paragon, to reject the entire thesis, ends not just with his/her death, but also the ultimate success of evil.  The next cycle, someone commits the very heinous act that the paragon shepard wanted to reject.  Evil did triumph, even in the face of good trying.

Modifié par generalleo03, 02 juillet 2012 - 02:56 .

[NobodyofConsequence]

edisnooM wrote...

@NobodyofConsequence

Sorry, I'm pretty sure I remember someone invoking that already. :-)

Also interesting point about the Catalyst's control over EDI and The Geth (One Night Only!).

Not suprised really, too juicy a line not to throw in.

I will say it actually makes some sense re EATG, that they should be destroyed in the Destroy ending, if the Catalyst essentially sends a wipe signal to all AIs based on Reaper code fragments, though I hear you can do something similar with subluminal messages, too. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that we would have had a way to achieve a conventional victory right there, by that line of reasoning.

[delta_vee]

@NobodyofConsequence

I will say it actually makes some sense re EATG, that they should be destroyed in the Destroy ending, if the Catalyst essentially sends a wipe signal to all AIs based on Reaper code fragments, though I hear you can do something similar with subluminal messages, too. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that we would have had a way to achieve a conventional victory right there, by that line of reasoning.

That would've been an interesting line of inquiry within the game - having the Reapers attempt to subvert synthetic races form the inside, convincing them to accept "upgrades" with a hidden off-switch to better eradicate them every cycle.

Ah, well. Toss it in the pile of coulda-shoulda-didn't.

[NobodyofConsequence]

@generalleo3, @SHARXTREME

I seem to recall Samara saying something important in ME2 (apart from "This was never a story that would have a happy ending") about Shepard, think it's during the recruitment mission, along the lines of someone who did not know Shepard would be unable to judge him/her correctly based on the amount of death/chaos that follows in his wake. Seems relevent, but can't find exact quote, dammit.

Paragon/Renegade and virtually every single other choice is irrelevent once we hit endgame save for how they have affected EMS, and even then someone who has played enough MP can have virtually no war assets and still have a high enough EMS to get the synthesis ending. Method is not meaningful from endgame pov. The big picture aftermath is affected, certainly, but the fundamental choices are not.

On that basis, what's left, then, is to ignore the ending as being relevent, and look at method as being the only substantial thing ME3 has to offer. The meaning of the game, in the abscence of (the versimilitude of) choice becomes how your Shepard got there, and the way it affected others along the way. That I can live with.

(SHARXTREME, you got me thinking, is all )

[NobodyofConsequence]

delta_vee wrote...

@NobodyofConsequence

I will say it actually makes some sense re EATG, that they should be destroyed in the Destroy ending, if the Catalyst essentially sends a wipe signal to all AIs based on Reaper code fragments, though I hear you can do something similar with subluminal messages, too. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that we would have had a way to achieve a conventional victory right there, by that line of reasoning.

That would've been an interesting line of inquiry within the game - having the Reapers attempt to subvert synthetic races form the inside, convincing them to accept "upgrades" with a hidden off-switch to better eradicate them every cycle.

Ah, well. Toss it in the pile of coulda-shoulda-didn't.

I really hope that some at least of the Bioware staff read this thread. If it were me as a staffer, I would be constantly cringing and probably depressed as hell, but I really think that the overall output here has been superb. That notion had not actually occurred to me, and would have been a great plot thread (I've always assumed the Reapers actually valued themselves highly enough as to wish to minimise their exposure to battle, hence the lackies to fight for them).

[MrFob]

NobodyofConsequence wrote...

delta_vee wrote...

@NobodyofConsequence

I will say it actually makes some sense re EATG, that they should be destroyed in the Destroy ending, if the Catalyst essentially sends a wipe signal to all AIs based on Reaper code fragments, though I hear you can do something similar with subluminal messages, too. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that we would have had a way to achieve a conventional victory right there, by that line of reasoning.

That would've been an interesting line of inquiry within the game - having the Reapers attempt to subvert synthetic races form the inside, convincing them to accept "upgrades" with a hidden off-switch to better eradicate them every cycle.

Ah, well. Toss it in the pile of coulda-shoulda-didn't.

I really hope that some at least of the Bioware staff read this thread. If it were me as a staffer, I would be constantly cringing and probably depressed as hell, but I really think that the overall output here has been superb. That notion had not actually occurred to me, and would have been a great plot thread (I've always assumed the Reapers actually valued themselves highly enough as to wish to minimise their exposure to battle, hence the lackies to fight for them).

One reason I'd never have expected the organic-synthetic conflict as the motivating force behind the reapers' actions was because they already had so much interaction with synthetics (see ME1 with Sovereign and the geth). They had every opportunity to do something like this (in fact, given Legion's explanations during his LM in ME2, they did something very similar already). Given the rather complicated schemes the reapers had going before ME3, it seems ludicrous that suddenly they just use blunt force to achieve aims they had the perfect tools for a long time ago. Ah well, we all knew star child was hopelessly stuck in his ways.

[NobodyofConsequence]

MrFob wrote...

NobodyofConsequence wrote...

delta_vee wrote...

@NobodyofConsequence

I will say it actually makes some sense re EATG, that they should be destroyed in the Destroy ending, if the Catalyst essentially sends a wipe signal to all AIs based on Reaper code fragments, though I hear you can do something similar with subluminal messages, too. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that we would have had a way to achieve a conventional victory right there, by that line of reasoning.

That would've been an interesting line of inquiry within the game - having the Reapers attempt to subvert synthetic races form the inside, convincing them to accept "upgrades" with a hidden off-switch to better eradicate them every cycle.

Ah, well. Toss it in the pile of coulda-shoulda-didn't.

I really hope that some at least of the Bioware staff read this thread. If it were me as a staffer, I would be constantly cringing and probably depressed as hell, but I really think that the overall output here has been superb. That notion had not actually occurred to me, and would have been a great plot thread (I've always assumed the Reapers actually valued themselves highly enough as to wish to minimise their exposure to battle, hence the lackies to fight for them).

One reason I'd never have expected the organic-synthetic conflict as the motivating force behind the reapers' actions was because they already had so much interaction with synthetics (see ME1 with Sovereign and the geth). They had every opportunity to do something like this (in fact, given Legion's explanations during his LM in ME2, they did something very similar already). Given the rather complicated schemes the reapers had going before ME3, it seems ludicrous that suddenly they just use blunt force to achieve aims they had the perfect tools for a long time ago. Ah well, we all knew star child was hopelessly stuck in his ways.

Yes! Why go to all The Trouble With Geth when the Geth represent the very thing that the Reapers are trying to protect the organics from by Reaping organics. Cue Yo Dawg jpeg. And for extra lols, gave the Geth Reaper code fragments to make them that much more dangerous to organics in order to help the Reapers reap the organics in order to save them from the synthetics who the Reapers had given Reaper code fragments to in order to help the Reapers reap the organics. Ok, I know this has been done before but it's just so hard to stop.

[edisnooM]

@NobodyofConsequence

The great thing about circular logic is that you can generally just keep on going ad infinitum ad nauseam. :-)

[NobodyofConsequence]

@edisnooM

It should have been the real ending. You choose one of four colours so you can have a sequence play where you get to choose one of four colours so you can have a sequence play, but first you have to choose one of four colours. Sure, it would have been a PITA once you realised what was going on, but eventually? Laughter and cupcakes. Oh, wait, scrub the cupcakes.

[TrevorHill]

Now that I think about it, wouldn't it make more sense to just wipe out the synthetics, thereby not having to be reapers? If they waited until synthetics rebelled, and then wiped them out, everyone would think the reapers were the greatest sh*t since sliced bred, and then they would know not to create synthetics in the future. Problem solved.

[NobodyofConsequence]

Hmm, I might be lurking a bit too much here today, apologies if anyone is sick of seeing my name on the left of screen. But I have to bite.

@TrevorHill - yes. Yes. 100%. Or they could even leave beacon-type things laying around on the Citadel saying 'We are the creators of the Citadel. Do not make synthetics or we will be forced to come in and Reap you, and you don't want that.' Thereby giving an incentive to nascent civilisations to follow a technological path that does not rely on synthetic AI. So we can go to cultivated organic AI instead, which won't rise up against its creators because it is not synthetic and all. See, this is the killer for me, it doesn't matter which way you slice it, there is simply no solid reasoning to be found in this whole shebang, which again, for me, means you have to look anywhere but the endings and the Catalyst in order to derive something meaningful from ME3.

[TrevorHill]

Yeah. They could've been like "hey, we'll share our super-awesome technology with you guys if you pinky-promise not to build any AI. But nah, they were like "we're gonna make you think it's a good idea to shoot your friend in the d*ck. Enjoy".