5087 réponses à ce sujet

[edisnooM]

Also the EC further muddies things because pre-EC it was "We stop Synthetics from wiping out all Organics", but now it kind of seems like he's saying "We are doing this to stop Organics and Synthetics from fighting". But it's kind of like mediating a dispute by killing both parties involved.

Also do we know who made the Citadel and the Relays now? Was it the Reapers as we've been told all along or was it the Catalysts creators? I don't remember them saying anything about it, and if Harbinger was the only Reaper at the beginning it seems like it would take a ridiculous amount of time for him to build all that.

THIS IS TAKING FOREVER

Catalyst: Stop complaining, it will be the perfect trap when it's done.


Edit: .......OK, um Terra's Theme from FF6: www.youtube.com/watch

Modifié par edisnooM, 02 juillet 2012 - 08:15 .

[TrevorHill]

I think it was probably the civilization. They would have at least a few cycles-worth of time, until they accidentally reaped themselves, with which to develop the technology. Now that I think about it, it would be hard for the reapers to build anything, what with their large, rigid, metal "tentacles" for hands.
Can't very well hold a hammer with that sh*t.

[edisnooM]

In the EC control ending they are rebuilding the Relays though so there's that.

Edit: They weren't using hammers though. :-)

Modifié par edisnooM, 02 juillet 2012 - 08:31 .

[TrevorHill]

I know. I did it all for the lolz.

[NobodyofConsequence]

TrevorHill wrote...

I know. I did it all for the lolz.

So did the writers.

[NobodyofConsequence]

I have got to stop procrastinating at some point today, but not at this one, apparently.

Known space, with the relay network, is not the entirety of the galaxy, nor of the network, as has been pointed out. Top of my head it's around 3%, I think. For any civilisations out there without access to the gate network, but still a relatively high level of technological development, all three of the original endings are going to come as something of a shock, one would imagine, once the energy wave hits them. Especially the cultures with a harmonious relationship between synthetic and organic, or the cybernetic cultures. And how does synthesis affect, for example, silicon-based lifeforms, as opposed to carbon-based?

[TrevorHill]

I guess it would be easier for the nano-machines to DNA-rape them. And even civilizations at, say, our technological level will be affected. It's like a galaxy wide EMP.

[El_Draque]

Wow. blown away by the OP.

[NobodyofConsequence]

TrevorHill wrote...

I guess it would be easier for the nano-machines to DNA-rape them. And even civilizations at, say, our technological level will be affected. It's like a galaxy wide EMP.

I'd wonder if an organic silicon-based lifeform would even survive the Destroy ending, depending on the exact laws of magic it depends on. Granted, there is no evidence I can recall of advanced non-carbon organics in the ME series, but let's riddle this, then - let's say there was scientific evidence of silcon-based life found on several planets, and consequently, a reasonable probability of some of that life being intelligent. Who then reassesses their use of the Destroy option, given you cannot predict the impact that it would have on these beings?

EDIT -presupposing that silicon circuitry is used in Geth construction, and still used in human technology.

Modifié par NobodyofConsequence, 02 juillet 2012 - 09:32 .

[NobodyofConsequence]

El_Draque wrote...

Wow. blown away by the OP.

It was pretty thought-provoking stuff. Jump right in if you have a mind to share your mind.

[TrevorHill]

I don't think the deciding factor in the energy wave is silicon. Lot's of sh*t is silicon that isn't synthetic, like sand. If it did, no more beaches. Or glass. Imagine people who where glasses when it goes off. It wouldn't be pretty, that's for sure.

[NobodyofConsequence]

This stuff is way above my paygrade, but I'm trying to figure out some, heh, logical fashion in which organic circuits, like our brains, would not be affected, but synthetic would be. The synthesis ending suggested a change at a molecular level, which suggested to me the composition of those circuits may be a factor. Might not, too.

As for the effect on glass, well, least the Geth don't have any windows.

[SHARXTREME]

NobodyofConsequence wrote...

I have got to stop procrastinating at some point today, but not at this one, apparently.

Known space, with the relay network, is not the entirety of the galaxy, nor of the network, as has been pointed out. Top of my head it's around 3%, I think. For any civilisations out there without access to the gate network, but still a relatively high level of technological development, all three of the original endings are going to come as something of a shock, one would imagine, once the energy wave hits them. Especially the cultures with a harmonious relationship between synthetic and organic, or the cybernetic cultures. And how does synthesis affect, for example, silicon-based lifeforms, as opposed to carbon-based?

Yes, that is also another hole in the story among many others. All endings but especially Control and Synthesis gets that much worse when you count in 97million star sistems that don't have their voice in final conflict.

That aside, what I did forget to say about Catalyst idea is that Bioware maybe tried to go from Idea about humans inevitably ending in Borg/Reaper collective, Matrix or in collective Hyperspace stasis by some AI trying to solve  problem of entropy(see "The Last Question" by Asimov .)
So the idea behind Catalyst could even be defended if they have put it that way(altough it's overused idea), as a way to keep that from happening, in that light, by enormous stretch Synthesis emerges in good light and Catalyst is right to leave you only the choices he finds acceptable..

There is that question hidden somewhere in all SF, is humanity predestined to end up boxed in the Collective or to constantly explore and expand(or to repeat war or destruction cycles).  Both ways need advance in technology. But exploration and expansion need even higher technological leap. We have already started networking, but we still can't leave our planet which will become a question of survival.  

[NobodyofConsequence]

SHARXTREME wrote...

NobodyofConsequence wrote...

I have got to stop procrastinating at some point today, but not at this one, apparently.

Known space, with the relay network, is not the entirety of the galaxy, nor of the network, as has been pointed out. Top of my head it's around 3%, I think. For any civilisations out there without access to the gate network, but still a relatively high level of technological development, all three of the original endings are going to come as something of a shock, one would imagine, once the energy wave hits them. Especially the cultures with a harmonious relationship between synthetic and organic, or the cybernetic cultures. And how does synthesis affect, for example, silicon-based lifeforms, as opposed to carbon-based?

Yes, that is also another hole in the story among many others. All endings but especially Control and Synthesis gets that much worse when you count in 97million star sistems that don't have their voice in final conflict.

That aside, what I did forget to say about Catalyst idea is that Bioware maybe tried to go from Idea about humans inevitably ending in Borg/Reaper collective, Matrix or in collective Hyperspace stasis by some AI trying to solve  problem of entropy(see "The Last Question" by Asimov .)
So the idea behind Catalyst could even be defended if they have put it that way(altough it's overused idea), as a way to keep that from happening, in that light, by enormous stretch Synthesis emerges in good light and Catalyst is right to leave you only the choices he finds acceptable..

There is that question hidden somewhere in all SF, is humanity predestined to end up boxed in the Collective or to constantly explore and expand(or to repeat war or destruction cycles).  Both ways need advance in technology. But exploration and expansion need even higher technological leap. We have already started networking, but we still can't leave our planet which will become a question of survival.  

Or to rephrase, if I may be so bold, it's the individual v the collective argument. I'm  not sure that technology in itself is likely to provide a solution, so much as an improved understanding of human nature. Or to put it another way, I don't see these questions being resolved through the use of tools, so much as through a change in attitudes, which ties back rather nicely to the tension between the collective and the individual you've outlined.

I seem to recall a lot of instances of a leadership figure attempting to impose their will on a group for its own good throughout the ME series. Wrex (if he lives) on the Krogans, Mordin and his team on the Krogans, Maelon on the Krogans (sucks to be Krogan), TIM on pretty much everyone, Aria on Omega, Udina on the Council (and on Anderson, for that matter, if you take that path). Shepard is especially guilty of this one, even as a Paragon, what with the way he plays in to the genophage/geth v heretics/council makeup. And that's the nature of individuality, really, to act according to one's own perceptions, in a way that ideally will benefit the collective but might well not. And yet, without these individual actors, the game never really happens at all, and everyone is busy being Reaperised before ME2 even starts.

I'll say it again - it all (for me) comes down to relationships in ME. Change happens when we foster relationships with others and move them in some way or another, even if its only to react in opposition to us. And not so much through our tools. And even an AI is really just a smart tool, when you get down to it, though in at least one case, it was a chainsaw the original owner managed to decapitate themself with.

[MrFob]

NobodyofConsequence wrote...


Or to rephrase, if I may be so bold, it's the individual v the collective argument. I'm  not sure that technology in itself is likely to provide a solution, so much as an improved understanding of human nature. Or to put it another way, I don't see these questions being resolved through the use of tools, so much as through a change in attitudes, which ties back rather nicely to the tension between the collective and the individual you've outlined.

I seem to recall a lot of instances of a leadership figure attempting to impose their will on a group for its own good throughout the ME series. Wrex (if he lives) on the Krogans, Mordin and his team on the Krogans, Maelon on the Krogans (sucks to be Krogan), TIM on pretty much everyone, Aria on Omega, Udina on the Council (and on Anderson, for that matter, if you take that path). Shepard is especially guilty of this one, even as a Paragon, what with the way he plays in to the genophage/geth v heretics/council makeup. And that's the nature of individuality, really, to act according to one's own perceptions, in a way that ideally will benefit the collective but might well not. And yet, without these individual actors, the game never really happens at all, and everyone is busy being Reaperised before ME2 even starts.

Yes but that question did not really get touched in the endings as far as I can see. Synthesis does not mean that suddenly we are a collective. There are still individuals which is made rather clear in the epilogue. On that note, as I have said many times, synthesis is not a solution to anything since these individuals will continue to strive to become better, to evolve and therefore will eventually develop tools that have the potential to become more complex than their creators.  => Same problem as before.

I'll say it again - it all (for me) comes down to relationships in ME. Change happens when we foster relationships with others and move them in some way or another, even if its only to react in opposition to us. And not so much through our tools. And even an AI is really just a smart tool, when you get down to it, though in at least one case, it was a chainsaw the original owner managed to decapitate themself with.

Well, my paragon Shepard (and myself as well) would enthusiastically disagree on that point. They may have started out as tools but as soon as they reach a point of self awareness, they can no longer be treated as such. Otherwise, I fear the star child is right and conflict is inevitable. This was exactly the problem with the geth and thank god EDI was pretty lenient on this one to my renegade Shepard who would not budge on the pov that EDI was just a machine (I still hate that guy).
We don't have this situation today but in the context of the ME universe, every sentient being, synthetic and organic has to be granted the same rights, privileges and restrictions. That is the solution to the catalyst's problem in my mind. I am not saying everything will always work out and be peaceful that way but any conflict that arises within these boundaries can be solved by "conventional" means. It doesn't even ensure the survival of organics, the way the reaper cycles do but at least it allows for progress and evolution. All the reapers and the catalyst do is maintain the same level and I don't think that stagnation is desirable for anyone.

Look there, I did slide right into sociology. Guess that proves GCC's earlier point. This problem must be solved in social rather than technological terms.

Modifié par MrFob, 02 juillet 2012 - 01:55 .

[SHARXTREME]

Or to rephrase, if I may be so bold, it's the individual v the collective argument. I'm not sure that technology in itself is likely to provide a solution, so much as an improved understanding of human nature. Or to put it another way, I don't see these questions being resolved through the use of tools, so much as through a change in attitudes, which ties back rather nicely to the tension between the collective and the individual you've outlined.

I always presume that multicultural leap must come first, without that technology will be used to impose some peoples will over the others. That will bring war, war brings destruction, destruction brings need for change or for "solution" ,etc in cycle that.will always repeat itself.

Individual vs Collective is main theme of past century where we had, national-socialism aka nacism and later had bipolar world of (multinational)Socialism and (multinational)Capitalism.
In SF, especially in Star Trek Voyager(TNG to lesser extent) this theme is represented in form of Borg.
In Mass Effect Reapers are described slightly different.(until the Catalyst).
Reapers were presented as "each thought a nation", they have different "names""voice", but as we see in their actions they are in consensus.about their goal to destroy us.
What Catalyst did to Reapers is to change Reapers from independent beings to slaves, from consensus to victims of dictator that spawned from the conflict. "I control the Reapers". So he is the master/dictator, while Borg Queen is similar to Racchni Queen. They represent the knowledge and collective strength of their species, they are not masters,
Catalyst represents terror of individual idea on everyone. Exact description of infamous dictators.

Whole human history is the conflict(sometimes it's harmony) of goals of the individual within/against possibilities/needs/goals of society.

What is especially wrong in the Catalyst character is that it represents Bioware writers "consensus", player needs to finish the game on their terms(yes, you can say that for any book, movie or game).
What is special about Catalyst character that this end(or end of creative process in ME) is so wrong almost beyond any logical explanation, so that Catalyst emerges/decloaks in the game as a vessel for intrusion and exposition of Bioware writers, effectively breaking any immersion left.
Shepard figure(player) gets destroyed completely and in the game where you could choose how it will progress, or how you will fight Reaper waves,
Then in the ending, Bioware in Collector General/Harbinger voice says:
-"I'm assuming direct control" and grabs the mouse/controler from your hands and leaves the player shocked that he will now watch how the game will end. .

Extended ending has just amplified and clarified that. When you in new options ask Catalyst something, you can clearly feel that you're "talking" to some angry Bioware writer. Especially when you ask about Synthesis:

-"Tell me how can I add my energy to the Crucible?" in that sentence alone Shepard(us, players) asks like ignorant child masters at Bioware to explain such simple thing. What's even funnier is that Catalyst/Bioware still couldn't figure out the answer to their own question.
Refuse is simple. I did it right after download severalč days ago, pressed every option and just shot Catalyst in the face with my unlimited ammo handgun. Insant game over, but wait, there's more.
Next cycle some poor bastard will have to choose, and even win.
But wait, how did he win?
Because if he could win, I could have win too.

Only thing that they could have done right even with the Catalyst in is to give the player no options at all and just roll the credits and aftermath movie.
Now they have option of building their "Artistic Integrity" by strenghtening Catalysts role even further , to ignore it all and let Mass Effect die entirely as a franchise, or to just rewrite the ending.
Is it possible for them to rewrite it is the story of its own and i would like to hear it.

Modifié par SHARXTREME, 02 juillet 2012 - 04:52 .

[SpamBot2000]

Wondering how you folks over on this thread feel about the simple idea seen in a fan-made ending video that just cuts from Anderson's death scene to the "destroy" ending, with no Edi & the Geth death punishment. Would that just be a feelgood cop-out, a regrettable reversal to standard video game endings or a way to restore some sanity to the universe by getting rid of the "GlowBoy" altogether?

[edisnooM]

@SpamBot2000

Honestly I'd probably be fine with that because up until glowboy all we knew about the Crucible was that it was going to stop the Reapers, so that ending would just have it doing what we had been told it would.

It still makes the whole fleets running away and ditching the Hammer ground forces and everyone on Earth a bit weird.

Hackett: Stand strong, stand together, run away when the Crucible fires.

Shepard: Wait, what?

Also if someone could cut out slides or scenes from the other endings that show the Geth and EDI alive and patch them in too, that would just be gravy. :-)

[shurryy]

****ing long wall of text...
Looks legit due to sheer size alone.

[Renmiri1]

O love that you have posted this. Makes it easier to criticise the ending, having a Uni teacher writing about it and how bad it was. I bet they added the "so be it" when you shoot the kid just because of him

[SHARXTREME]

Hackett: Stand strong, stand together, run away when the Crucible fires.

Shepard: Wait, what?

It's fuuny when you cut it like that, but I'm perfectly fine with them "running away" from the shockwave. What else could they do, they don't know what Crucible does(nobody knows really). It can fry every system in entire fleet, but then again Catalyst wants us to think it's giant battery that doesn't do anything at all without him.

At this point Bioware can even use the backdoor opened by indoctrination theory, new lines in Shepards dreams, new lines by Harbinger and still vague ending to slip in some completely different ending altogether and emerge as true victors with fans as victors as well.
They would need DLC before that ending, that would prepare the player for "real" ending.

And I'm OK with that. That would be evolution in this media. Because players play the game.
Nobody played Mass Effect to watch cutscenes.

My Shepard didn't save the geth to kill them days later.
She didn't help Turians and Krogans to cure the genophage only to watch their faces as they turn to cyborgs.
She didn't fight The Illussive Man's strive for power and Control, only to assume control herself.
She didn't fight the Reapers, Batarians, Blood pack, eclipse, Blue suns, Cerberus, Collectors, Shadow Broker, etc, died, came back to life, gather allies, destroyed Human Reaper, helped build the Crucible, scavenged for artifacts, rushed to the beam, killed "Marauder Shields", talked some sense in Illusive Man... only to hear "so be it" and bleed out dumb on the Citadel/Crucible dock.

That reminds me that whole place where Shepard is in the ending is (yet)another hole in the ending.
Shepard is not on Citadel, but between Citadel and Crucible. Somebody from Crucible could come and.. Just saying.
.

Modifié par SHARXTREME, 02 juillet 2012 - 08:34 .

[Pinax]

SHARXTREME wrote...

[...] What is especially wrong in the Catalyst character is that it represents Bioware writers "consensus", player needs to finish the game on their terms(yes, you can say that for any book, movie or game).
What is special about Catalyst character that this end(or end of creative process in ME) is so wrong almost beyond any logical explanation, so that Catalyst emerges/decloaks in the game as a vessel for intrusion and exposition of Bioware writers, effectively breaking any immersion left.
Shepard figure(player) gets destroyed completely and in the game where you could choose how it will progress, or how you will fight Reaper waves,
Then in the ending, Bioware in Collector General/Harbinger voice says:
-"I'm assuming direct control" and grabs the mouse/controler from your hands and leaves the player shocked that he will now watch how the game will end.

Excellent point. The diffeerence between any movie or book here is the level of immersion between player and the main character, strongly encouraged by the game and BW itself all the time. ME games are not bystanding some Shepard's story, this is our Shepard = player's version of the story. "I'm assuming direct control" within the last 20 minutes of the game and a "So be it" if you do not agree on this is like a punishment we did not deserve

Extended ending has just amplified and clarified that. When you in new options ask Catalyst something, you can clearly feel that you're "talking" to some angry Bioware writer. Especially when you ask about Synthesis:

-"Tell me how can I add my energy to the Crucible?" in that sentence alone Shepard(us, players) asks like ignorant child masters at Bioware to explain such simple thing. What's even funnier is that Catalyst/Bioware still couldn't figure out the answer to their own question.
Refuse is simple. I did it right after download severalč days ago, pressed every option and just shot Catalyst in the face with my unlimited ammo handgun. Insant game over, but wait, there's more.
Next cycle some poor bastard will have to choose, and even win.
But wait, how did he win?
Because if he could win, I could have win too.

Only thing that they could have done right even with the Catalyst in is to give the player no options at all and just roll the credits and aftermath movie.
Now they have option of building their "Artistic Integrity" by strenghtening Catalysts role even further , to ignore it all and let Mass Effect die entirely as a franchise, or to just rewrite the ending.
Is it possible for them to rewrite it is the story of its own and i would like to hear it.

In this context it is still a riddle to me how BW could risk their name, reputation and it's strongest game brand for... so called "artistic integrity" which has nothing in common with integrity. Also if they are proved more than once, not only with ME series, they have all the skills to pefectly tie different player choices in a integral and satisfying story. More on this and more on the speculations on this and another very interesting point of view on ME3 ending, can be seen in this video I strongly recomend - it gives to think about (especially - as for me at least - the part of "prestige" opinions and ME3 media reviews before the release of the game):

[edisnooM]

@SHARXTREME

I get that they didn't know what the Crucible did, so getting the heck out of dodge might make sense, except for the fact they deployed it over Earth. So it's great that the victory fleet might be safe but that still leaves all the people on the planet, not to mention all the troops that went down to "Take Back Earth", hanging out to dry.

It seems like that should have been part of the briefing at the very least, I mean that would have solved a lot right there. Just have Hackett mention that once the Crucible fires the fleet will withdraw to a safe distance (which evidently means an entirely different system, so good luck Sol).


And were there still people on the Crucible when it fired? Because if so that kinda sucks for them, also:

"Hey, is that Shepard down there?"

"Yeah, looks like he's talking to some sort of glowing child."

"Huh, that's seems bizarrely out of place. Wait, how is he breathing?"

[SHARXTREME]

@Pinax

Good video. valid points and critiques,(especially about game journalism) and a very funny style that suits my general feeling about this whole charade with "clarifying" the ending so that we perhaps one day "we just might get it"(the artistic vision).
No.
And his equation is great. ????+???+???+???=Art?.

@edisnooM

I, myself, didn't get the feeling(who knows why) that energy release would damage people or planets(except "synthesis" ending which damaged everything). After all Crucible is built to destroy the Reapers, not to destroy non-reapers. And Hackett ways before ending says "We don't know what it will do, but amount of energy released will be immense"(or something very close to that).

So I can accept that they run from the shockwave, what else can they do? Remember, they are still fighting the Reapers until the moment of energy build up.
They cannot save the population, or any unfortunate bastard left on Citadel and Crucible, but that is also a big big hole in the story.
What happened to all people on Citadel, (did they go throug meat grinder? if they did where are the husks, marauders, Banshees and other "goddamn abominations"?) Is anyone on Crucible, did the Reapers rewrite the Keepers once again? etc.

All these questions and million others plot holes don't need to be filled, if you cut at the jump to the Citadel,make this ending a bad dream(which it is by now even in BW), near death experience as Shepard lies half-dead in rubble, indoctrination process which starts in TIM scene(they have added few effects there as well, so they could use it), or anything really to make this "catalyst" ending go away