5087 réponses à ce sujet

[babachewie]

Your professors a moron. Doesn't matter though. They aren't changing it. That wall of nothing but ignorance is useless.

[Insane_Ivan]

I like that your Lit Professor was nice enough to give his time to help let Bioware know what they completely messed up on.

-Hold the Line

-Insane_Ivan

[Insane_Ivan]

babachewie wrote...

Your professors a moron. Doesn't matter though. They aren't changing it. That wall of nothing but ignorance is useless.

And your credentials are?  Ahh yes the Trolling Academy of South Fartland.

-Insane_Ivan

[DoctorCrowtgamer]

babachewie wrote...

Your professors a moron. Doesn't matter though. They aren't changing it. That wall of nothing but ignorance is useless.

I hate it when teenage goth kids post on internet forums,you people are the reason I avoid the mall!

[Phydeaux314]

Folks, just because s/he has a different opinion doesn't mean s/he's a troll or bad person. That said, baba, that's not a terribly constructive remark, and doesn't address the issues that the professor brought up. If you want people to take your ideas seriously, try less vitriol and more reasoned argument.

[TonViper]

Athlonis1 wrote...

Your professor is awesome by the way.

I'd also like to say that he makes well articulated arguments against the ends. We really do need to get them changed....

I'll tell you, if I had enough money to do it, I'd buy Bioware in a heartbeat and greenlight an entire rewrite of the endings. Even if I never saw a return on the investment, I'd think it worth it to steer Bioware back on the path of telling great stories.

But, of course, I do not have anywhere near enough money to even start a company, let alone to purchase an existing company of any size, but I like the thought. I think I can honestly say that I'd rather have Bioware continually making good quality games that tell amazing stories than I'd have 1 million dollars (yes, I know this amount isn't on the scale of what Bioware is worth, I'm just throwing a largeish figure out there for the sake of argument).

[Bradagan]

Awesome post Original Poster.

Same goes to you Professor.

I felt the same way.

The endings represented either Hypocrisy (siding with The Illusive Man and believing you could control the reapers), Genocide (exterminating the Geth and EDI along with the Reapers), or Hubris (Deciding to play God and convert every living thing in the galaxy into bio-robots without their consent or input. Weren't the Reapers pretty much doing that anyway? Converting sentient organics into sentient killer squiddies?)

I don't find anything particularly bittersweet about any of those things.

I don't find there to be anything artistic in the underlying message.

I don't think this was a true artistic vision at all of the team that created this wonderful game series and these beloved characters.

I *do* think this was the rushed attempt of two people to write something that would be seen as "deep" and "open ended" operating under the mistaken belief that their work did not need to be peer reviewed by the rest of the writers.

Personally I don't want clarification. I don't want an extended explanation of why this terrible ending is so terrible. I don't want Deus Ex Machina Starchild Space Magic Fanfiction given the stamp of approval simply because it was written by the project lead.

I want a new ending created by the whole team that's true to the overlying artistic vision of the Mass Effect universe.

This wasn't it.

[optimistickied]

generalleo03 wrote...

optimistickied wrote...

@ Kloreep

I'm kind of guilty of extending the meaning of the phrase "synthetic life" into meaning "advanced technology" or even "chaos." I didn't interpret the Catalyst so literally. I could look at my own world and see how the created was systematically wiping out the creator (Enter the Atomic Age) and take that as proof of what the Catalyst was saying. In hindsight, he's clearly talking about synthetics vs. organics.

The Catalyst also introduced this very strong spiritual figurehead that felt a little bizarre. Religion and spirituality is an interesting topic in Mass Effect. You don't see it often, and it tends to be treated as a primitive belief, a superstition, an anachronism. Is God officially dead in the Mass Effect universe? Apparently not, as Shepard (the deliverer) receives his divine edict direct from God, from Nature.

Weird.

The thematic shift is jarring, but (as I've said elsewhere) it had an effect on me. That entire sequence felt like being under water; it was surreal.

(I'm still thinking about the Krogan thing you brought up. Give me time, ese.)

Hi,

Sorry to kinda butt in on your conversation, but I find it pretty interesting.  I do want to mention one point i think is relevant.  Shepard was a different character for everyone.  My biggest issue with the ending is that it seems that the players ability to choose who shepard was in the galaxy was thrown out.  I could no longer play Shepard how I felt was right, and was instead forced to play BioWare's Shepard.  This, to me, is a big problem.  Giving someone the right to shape their representative in the world (which they most definately do up until the last 15 minutes) and then pulling it away, sucker punching them and laughing while the credits roll (to be honest its how I felt) was perhaps not the best way to end the story.  I think one of the biggest issues is primarily a failure of research by bioware.  They did not need to provide a million different shepards, but they sure as rain needed to provide more than one.  And that is all taking the events with the catalyst at face value.

I personally break down the whole synthetics versus organics thing into two specific claims.  
1) Synthetic-Organic war is inevitable (re: not likely, inevitable)

2) Synthetic-Organic war will end with not just the organics in the war being annihilated, but all organic life being annihilated.  

I would contend, the only synthtic being that come's close to proving this in the main story of all 3 Mass Effects are the Reapers themselves, which makes it circular reasoning.  The heretic geth are an interesting take at it, but ultimately it was shown that they were being led and influenced by the reapers.  Sovereign influenced the heretic geth, though he did not control them directly.  There is some support here, but it still leaves a dreadful question, in the absense of the reapers, would the geth have attacked at all?  There isn't enough support either way for it, which makes it not really support for either side.

I can continue along these lines, but I think its too long already.  I just hope I haven't detracted too much.

Whoa, you're not butting in. I like it.

I'm having a hard time understanding why making this decision was different from our previous decisions.The characters and settings and options had always been predefined for us; there was never a unique version of Shepard. If you're like me, you projected parts of your own personality onto the character; you mentally kept track of his quest and gave him or her a personal history; you distinguished the character from other Shepards. The game did not care whether I picked a Paragon or Renegade option, but I did. In other words, I didn't feel as though this mental continuity I had formed was suddenly disposed of, because it was never really in the coding of the game to begin with. The decisions I'd made only reinforced my connection to Shepard; it did not supplant the personal connection I'd made with the character. Or something. I don't know. It's hard to explain.

People keep saying they suddenly felt as though they weren't in control of the story, but I never really thought I was. I pretended.

The Catalyst presents the scenario; we must react to it. Its claim that synthetic life will supplant organic life is the information it is giving us. Whether that is true is irrelevant. It is not refutable, because we do not get to refute it. We can think it over, we can speculate about it, but when the game options are placed upon the screen, we must make our decision, according to what we believe is the closest to our ideal of resolution. If we wanted to hand Kasumi Goto into the authorities because we felt she was breaking the law, that is not within our available options. If we wanted Liara to stop being the Shadow Broker, we can't.

[DoctorCrowtgamer]

Bradagan wrote...

Awesome post Original Poster.

Same goes to you Professor.

I felt the same way.

The endings represented either Hypocrisy (siding with The Illusive Man and believing you could control the reapers), Genocide (exterminating the Geth and EDI along with the Reapers), or Hubris (Deciding to play God and convert every living thing in the galaxy into bio-robots without their consent or input. Weren't the Reapers pretty much doing that anyway? Converting sentient organics into sentient killer squiddies?)

I don't find anything particularly bittersweet about any of those things.

I don't find there to be anything artistic in the underlying message.

I don't think this was a true artistic vision at all of the team that created this wonderful game series and these beloved characters.

I *do* think this was the rushed attempt of two people to write something that would be seen as "deep" and "open ended" operating under the mistaken belief that their work did not need to be peer reviewed by the rest of the writers.

Personally I don't want clarification. I don't want an extended explanation of why this terrible ending is so terrible. I don't want Deus Ex Machina Starchild Space Magic Fanfiction given the stamp of approval simply because it was written by the project lead.

I want a new ending created by the whole team that's true to the overlying artistic vision of the Mass Effect universe.

This wasn't it.

Yeah and that is why extended endings will not fix my problems with the game because the outcome will be the same. 

Oh and it seems to me there is a race of very famouse sci-fi villains from a very famous sci-fi series that's whole goal is to force people to become cyborgs against their will. How could Bioware have put that ending in as something the hero does and not see trouble coming over it.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

optimistickied wrote...

generalleo03 wrote...

optimistickied wrote...

@ Kloreep

I'm kind of guilty of extending the meaning of the phrase "synthetic life" into meaning "advanced technology" or even "chaos." I didn't interpret the Catalyst so literally. I could look at my own world and see how the created was systematically wiping out the creator (Enter the Atomic Age) and take that as proof of what the Catalyst was saying. In hindsight, he's clearly talking about synthetics vs. organics.

The Catalyst also introduced this very strong spiritual figurehead that felt a little bizarre. Religion and spirituality is an interesting topic in Mass Effect. You don't see it often, and it tends to be treated as a primitive belief, a superstition, an anachronism. Is God officially dead in the Mass Effect universe? Apparently not, as Shepard (the deliverer) receives his divine edict direct from God, from Nature.

Weird.

The thematic shift is jarring, but (as I've said elsewhere) it had an effect on me. That entire sequence felt like being under water; it was surreal.

(I'm still thinking about the Krogan thing you brought up. Give me time, ese.)

Hi,

Sorry to kinda butt in on your conversation, but I find it pretty interesting.  I do want to mention one point i think is relevant.  Shepard was a different character for everyone.  My biggest issue with the ending is that it seems that the players ability to choose who shepard was in the galaxy was thrown out.  I could no longer play Shepard how I felt was right, and was instead forced to play BioWare's Shepard.  This, to me, is a big problem.  Giving someone the right to shape their representative in the world (which they most definately do up until the last 15 minutes) and then pulling it away, sucker punching them and laughing while the credits roll (to be honest its how I felt) was perhaps not the best way to end the story.  I think one of the biggest issues is primarily a failure of research by bioware.  They did not need to provide a million different shepards, but they sure as rain needed to provide more than one.  And that is all taking the events with the catalyst at face value.

I personally break down the whole synthetics versus organics thing into two specific claims.  
1) Synthetic-Organic war is inevitable (re: not likely, inevitable)

2) Synthetic-Organic war will end with not just the organics in the war being annihilated, but all organic life being annihilated.  

I would contend, the only synthtic being that come's close to proving this in the main story of all 3 Mass Effects are the Reapers themselves, which makes it circular reasoning.  The heretic geth are an interesting take at it, but ultimately it was shown that they were being led and influenced by the reapers.  Sovereign influenced the heretic geth, though he did not control them directly.  There is some support here, but it still leaves a dreadful question, in the absense of the reapers, would the geth have attacked at all?  There isn't enough support either way for it, which makes it not really support for either side.

I can continue along these lines, but I think its too long already.  I just hope I haven't detracted too much.

Whoa, you're not butting in. I like it.

I'm having a hard time understanding why making this decision was different from our previous decisions.The characters and settings and options had always been predefined for us; there was never a unique version of Shepard. If you're like me, you projected parts of your own personality onto the character; you mentally kept track of his quest and gave him or her a personal history; you distinguished the character from other Shepards. The game did not care whether I picked a Paragon or Renegade option, but I did. In other words, I didn't feel as though this mental continuity I had formed was suddenly disposed of, because it was never really in the coding of the game to begin with. The decisions I'd made only reinforced my connection to Shepard; it did not supplant the personal connection I'd made with the character. Or something. I don't know. It's hard to explain.

People keep saying they suddenly felt as though they weren't in control of the story, but I never really thought I was. I pretended.

The Catalyst presents the scenario; we must react to it. Its claim that synthetic life will supplant organic life is the information it is giving us. Whether that is true is irrelevant. It is not refutable, because we do not get to refute it. We can think it over, we can speculate about it, but when the game options are placed upon the screen, we must make our decision, according to what we believe is the closest to our ideal of resolution. If we wanted to hand Kasumi Goto into the authorities because we felt she was breaking the law, that is not within our available options. If we wanted Liara to stop being the Shadow Broker, we can't.

You could have exactly the same options and still have an illusion of defiance and free will, is the thing.

The choices are tainted because their justification comes from the Starkid and because they aren't foreshadowed in a meaningful way that allows you to consider the perspective of multiple other sentients in the galaxy. You're also denied the ability to consult with your friends, something that is present at literally every other significant choice in the game.

Remember Tuchanka in ME2, fighting through the hospital, interviewing Mordin at every crossroads, learning about the moral choice you would be required to make later? You could have something like that in ME3 easily, where you're fighting through the Crucible, and your squadmates or the Prothean VI are giving you information or feedback on what they think these different pieces of the device might do. "These conduits are broadcasting on frequencies similar to the reaper control ones the Illusive man developed." "It's a giant EMP disruptor... could this be a device that would obliterate all Synthetics?" Then you could have conversations with people you actually trust and care about.

Right now Synthesis is the most problematic, because it's basically a "turn everyone into cyborgs" button, which makes little sense. It is literally the only thing in the Mass Effect universe that yanked me out of the narrative with a "wait, how would that even WORK?"  I love the transhumanist singularity. I'm FOR it. I actually think the races in Mass Effect are probably not too far from achieving it independently (see: that long arc on the Cerberus News Network about meeting a civilization of formerly organic beings who now exist as digitized thoughts living in a simulated environment.) I think it could have worked beautifully as an option that the galaxy would have to make the conscious decision to adopt in order to win. With this version of transhumanist synthesis, it would be necessary for a significant portion of the galaxy to make the decision to embrace a hybrid existence in order to survive... shepard would be leaving the choice up to them, and it would be beautiful.

For example, something like this: "This station has the ability to enhance organics with cybernetic 'reaper
antibodies' that would prevent indoctrination and huskificiation, and it also has the ability to maguffin the geth to make them more squishy in some way that will be beneficial. With this, we can beat the reaper forces conventionally, though I'd suspect it would require something like 50% of our forces to voluntarily go through the process."

These suggestions are just me spitballing, trying to come up with ways that Shepard could have similar decisions that weren't as thematically atrocious. I don't think they're miracle fixes at all, I think there would have to be deeper structural support throughout the narrative to make endings like these really resonate.

If the Kid was there saying "there's nothing you can do to stop me!" and Shepard's decision to enact one of the three options was presented differently... if you had Shepard essentially saying  "Oh yeah? Well we organics built these three switches, and I intend to use one of them!" it would have given the impression of actual choice and defiance, rather than the impression of surrender and assent that we got. The fact that the end choices are presented and explained to us by an unreliable monster is central to what makes them feel trap-like and unfulfilling.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 18 avril 2012 - 02:05 .

[clos]

Can your professor oversee the extended DLC cut? At least in an advisor position?

Because seriously, Bioware at this point needs someone to hold their hand through the process. They are too shell-shocked to admit they farked up.

[DoctorCrowtgamer]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

optimistickied wrote...

generalleo03 wrote...

optimistickied wrote...

@ Kloreep

I'm kind of guilty of extending the meaning of the phrase "synthetic life" into meaning "advanced technology" or even "chaos." I didn't interpret the Catalyst so literally. I could look at my own world and see how the created was systematically wiping out the creator (Enter the Atomic Age) and take that as proof of what the Catalyst was saying. In hindsight, he's clearly talking about synthetics vs. organics.

The Catalyst also introduced this very strong spiritual figurehead that felt a little bizarre. Religion and spirituality is an interesting topic in Mass Effect. You don't see it often, and it tends to be treated as a primitive belief, a superstition, an anachronism. Is God officially dead in the Mass Effect universe? Apparently not, as Shepard (the deliverer) receives his divine edict direct from God, from Nature.

Weird.

The thematic shift is jarring, but (as I've said elsewhere) it had an effect on me. That entire sequence felt like being under water; it was surreal.

(I'm still thinking about the Krogan thing you brought up. Give me time, ese.)

Hi,

Sorry to kinda butt in on your conversation, but I find it pretty interesting.  I do want to mention one point i think is relevant.  Shepard was a different character for everyone.  My biggest issue with the ending is that it seems that the players ability to choose who shepard was in the galaxy was thrown out.  I could no longer play Shepard how I felt was right, and was instead forced to play BioWare's Shepard.  This, to me, is a big problem.  Giving someone the right to shape their representative in the world (which they most definately do up until the last 15 minutes) and then pulling it away, sucker punching them and laughing while the credits roll (to be honest its how I felt) was perhaps not the best way to end the story.  I think one of the biggest issues is primarily a failure of research by bioware.  They did not need to provide a million different shepards, but they sure as rain needed to provide more than one.  And that is all taking the events with the catalyst at face value.

I personally break down the whole synthetics versus organics thing into two specific claims.  
1) Synthetic-Organic war is inevitable (re: not likely, inevitable)

2) Synthetic-Organic war will end with not just the organics in the war being annihilated, but all organic life being annihilated.  

I would contend, the only synthtic being that come's close to proving this in the main story of all 3 Mass Effects are the Reapers themselves, which makes it circular reasoning.  The heretic geth are an interesting take at it, but ultimately it was shown that they were being led and influenced by the reapers.  Sovereign influenced the heretic geth, though he did not control them directly.  There is some support here, but it still leaves a dreadful question, in the absense of the reapers, would the geth have attacked at all?  There isn't enough support either way for it, which makes it not really support for either side.

I can continue along these lines, but I think its too long already.  I just hope I haven't detracted too much.

Whoa, you're not butting in. I like it.

I'm having a hard time understanding why making this decision was different from our previous decisions.The characters and settings and options had always been predefined for us; there was never a unique version of Shepard. If you're like me, you projected parts of your own personality onto the character; you mentally kept track of his quest and gave him or her a personal history; you distinguished the character from other Shepards. The game did not care whether I picked a Paragon or Renegade option, but I did. In other words, I didn't feel as though this mental continuity I had formed was suddenly disposed of, because it was never really in the coding of the game to begin with. The decisions I'd made only reinforced my connection to Shepard; it did not supplant the personal connection I'd made with the character. Or something. I don't know. It's hard to explain.

People keep saying they suddenly felt as though they weren't in control of the story, but I never really thought I was. I pretended.

The Catalyst presents the scenario; we must react to it. Its claim that synthetic life will supplant organic life is the information it is giving us. Whether that is true is irrelevant. It is not refutable, because we do not get to refute it. We can think it over, we can speculate about it, but when the game options are placed upon the screen, we must make our decision, according to what we believe is the closest to our ideal of resolution. If we wanted to hand Kasumi Goto into the authorities because we felt she was breaking the law, that is not within our available options. If we wanted Liara to stop being the Shadow Broker, we can't.

You could have exactly the same options and still have an illusion of defiance and free will, is the thing.

The choices are tainted because their justification comes from the Starkid and because they aren't foreshadowed in a meaningful way that allows you to consider the perspective of multiple other sentients in the galaxy. You're also denied the ability to consult with your friends, something that is present at literally every other significant choice in the game.

Remember Tuchanka in ME2, fighting through the hospital, interviewing Mordin at every crossroads, learning about the moral choice you would be required to make later? You could have something like that in ME3 easily, where you're fighting through the Crucible, and your squadmates or the Prothean VI are giving you information or feedback on what they think these different pieces of the device might do. "These conduits are broadcasting on frequencies similar to the reaper control ones the Illusive man developed." "It's a giant EMP disruptor... could this be a device that would obliterate all Synthetics?" Then you could have conversations with people you actually trust and care about.

Right now Synthesis is the most problematic, because it's basically a "turn everyone into cyborgs" button, which makes little sense. It is literally the only thing in the Mass Effect universe that yanked me out of the narrative with a "wait, how would that even WORK?"  I love the transhumanist singularity. I'm FOR it. I actually think the races in Mass Effect are probably not too far from achieving it independently (see: that long arc on the Cerberus News Network about meeting a civilization of formerly organic beings who now exist as digitized thoughts living in a simulated environment.) I think it could have worked beautifully as an option that the galaxy would have to make the conscious decision to adopt in order to win. With this version of transhumanist synthesis, it would be necessary for a significant portion of the galaxy to make the decision to embrace a hybrid existence in order to survive... shepard would be leaving the choice up to them, and it would be beautiful.

For example, something like this: "This station has the ability to enhance organics with cybernetic 'reaper
antibodies' that would prevent indoctrination and huskificiation, and it also has the ability to maguffin the geth to make them more squishy in some way that will be beneficial. With this, we can beat the reaper forces conventionally, though I'd suspect it would require something like 50% of our forces to voluntarily go through the process."

These suggestions are just me spitballing, trying to come up with ways that Shepard could have similar decisions that weren't as thematically atrocious. I don't think they're miracle fixes at all, I think there would have to be deeper structural support throughout the narrative to make endings like these really resonate.

If the Kid was there saying "there's nothing you can do to stop me!" and Shepard's decision to enact one of the three options was presented differently... if you had Shepard essentially saying  "Oh yeah? Well we organics built these three switches, and I intend to use one of them!" it would have given the impression of actual choice and defiance, rather than the impression of surrender and assent that we got. The fact that the end choices are presented and explained to us by an unreliable monster is central to what makes them feel trap-like and unfulfilling.

That still leaves the problem that morally none of those three choices are something my shepard would have gone with because they all violated something he believed in.

[ZiegenkonigIII]

Fantastic posts in this thread! On both sides, not to mention. A really great read, I thank you.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

DoctorCrowtgamer wrote...

That still leaves the problem that morally none of those three choices are something my shepard would have gone with because they all violated something he believed in.

True. I'd prefer an option that isn't monstrous to the vast majority of Shepards, but the point of my post above was to show how, even if the choices themselves had been valid, they were presented in a way that did the most damage to the illusion of reasonableness and agency.

I'm curious, though... if the Synthetic ending had been more "release the synthesis technology, which existing organics and synthetics can choose whether or not to use in order to save themselves," rather than "cyborg button!" would it still have been morally repugnant to you? 

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 18 avril 2012 - 02:13 .

[DoctorCrowtgamer]

Well I think the idea that anyone who doesn't use it will be killed thus keeping the message as the only way to save life is if all people become part of the same race would have still rubbed me a bit wrong,but I guess it would not have been as bad.

[jinxter69]

Having Bioware making these endings and taking away my choice on how to play Shepard ruined my Artistic Integrity on the story I told with MY Shepard. After the platform raised up, I was no longer able to choose how my ending went...MY Artistic Choice was gone.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

DoctorCrowtgamer wrote...

Well I think the idea that anyone who doesn't use it will be killed thus keeping the message as the only way to save life is if all people become part of the same race would have still rubbed me a bit wrong,but I guess it would not have been as bad.

I wasn't  going for the idea that anyone who didn't use it would be killed, but rather the idea that a significant number of people had to decide to embrace the technology in order to win. If enough people volunteered, they could theoretically save the universe while a significant population remained pure synthetic or pure organic.

I think that an integrated society that contains pure synthetics, pure biotics, and a lot of people who occupy the spectrum in between would be much truer to the game's existing themes than one where everyone is hybridized, so I was trying to think of a situation where we'd need to have a huge number of people volunteer to by hybrids while creating and preserving synthetic/organic diversity.

[generalleo03]

optimistickied wrote...

generalleo03 wrote...

optimistickied wrote...

@ Kloreep

I'm kind of guilty of extending the meaning of the phrase "synthetic life" into meaning "advanced technology" or even "chaos." I didn't interpret the Catalyst so literally. I could look at my own world and see how the created was systematically wiping out the creator (Enter the Atomic Age) and take that as proof of what the Catalyst was saying. In hindsight, he's clearly talking about synthetics vs. organics.

The Catalyst also introduced this very strong spiritual figurehead that felt a little bizarre. Religion and spirituality is an interesting topic in Mass Effect. You don't see it often, and it tends to be treated as a primitive belief, a superstition, an anachronism. Is God officially dead in the Mass Effect universe? Apparently not, as Shepard (the deliverer) receives his divine edict direct from God, from Nature.

Weird.

The thematic shift is jarring, but (as I've said elsewhere) it had an effect on me. That entire sequence felt like being under water; it was surreal.

(I'm still thinking about the Krogan thing you brought up. Give me time, ese.)

Hi,

Sorry to kinda butt in on your conversation, but I find it pretty interesting.  I do want to mention one point i think is relevant.  Shepard was a different character for everyone.  My biggest issue with the ending is that it seems that the players ability to choose who shepard was in the galaxy was thrown out.  I could no longer play Shepard how I felt was right, and was instead forced to play BioWare's Shepard.  This, to me, is a big problem.  Giving someone the right to shape their representative in the world (which they most definately do up until the last 15 minutes) and then pulling it away, sucker punching them and laughing while the credits roll (to be honest its how I felt) was perhaps not the best way to end the story.  I think one of the biggest issues is primarily a failure of research by bioware.  They did not need to provide a million different shepards, but they sure as rain needed to provide more than one.  And that is all taking the events with the catalyst at face value.

I personally break down the whole synthetics versus organics thing into two specific claims.  
1) Synthetic-Organic war is inevitable (re: not likely, inevitable)

2) Synthetic-Organic war will end with not just the organics in the war being annihilated, but all organic life being annihilated.  

I would contend, the only synthtic being that come's close to proving this in the main story of all 3 Mass Effects are the Reapers themselves, which makes it circular reasoning.  The heretic geth are an interesting take at it, but ultimately it was shown that they were being led and influenced by the reapers.  Sovereign influenced the heretic geth, though he did not control them directly.  There is some support here, but it still leaves a dreadful question, in the absense of the reapers, would the geth have attacked at all?  There isn't enough support either way for it, which makes it not really support for either side.

I can continue along these lines, but I think its too long already.  I just hope I haven't detracted too much.

Whoa, you're not butting in. I like it.

I'm having a hard time understanding why making this decision was different from our previous decisions.The characters and settings and options had always been predefined for us; there was never a unique version of Shepard. If you're like me, you projected parts of your own personality onto the character; you mentally kept track of his quest and gave him or her a personal history; you distinguished the character from other Shepards. The game did not care whether I picked a Paragon or Renegade option, but I did. In other words, I didn't feel as though this mental continuity I had formed was suddenly disposed of, because it was never really in the coding of the game to begin with. The decisions I'd made only reinforced my connection to Shepard; it did not supplant the personal connection I'd made with the character. Or something. I don't know. It's hard to explain.

People keep saying they suddenly felt as though they weren't in control of the story, but I never really thought I was. I pretended.

The Catalyst presents the scenario; we must react to it. Its claim that synthetic life will supplant organic life is the information it is giving us. Whether that is true is irrelevant. It is not refutable, because we do not get to refute it. We can think it over, we can speculate about it, but when the game options are placed upon the screen, we must make our decision, according to what we believe is the closest to our ideal of resolution. If we wanted to hand Kasumi Goto into the authorities because we felt she was breaking the law, that is not within our available options. If we wanted Liara to stop being the Shadow Broker, we can't.

I like your thoughts here.  Completely agree that our choices have always been limited.  But My real point of contention, the real reason I say it wasn't "my shepard" is about morality.  The game consistently gives very similar outcomes (ultimately) to both renegade and paragon choices.  I would say paragon is "better" only in the sense that more people tend to survive.  Unlike the previous two games, which ultimately had a major moral choice at the end (save the council or don't? save the base or don't? ) This didn't feel like a moral choice to me.  It felt like a bunch of amoral, poorly understood choices.  Since I have literally no information, and most especially no reason to trust the catalyst, I cannot reason about it morally.  And while I agree to some extent that amoral choices can work, I don't agree it belongs in Mass Effect.  The closest point that the previous narrative came to this was legions loyalty mission.  I would contend it is poorly reasoned morally.  I felt both choices were wrong (really brainwashing or killing?).  I also felt that killing them was by far and away more moral than brainwashing.  What's worse?  Dying for a cause you chose to believe in or being brainwashed, and possibly forced to fight against said cause because then you'd be alive?  It really has and completely and totally simplistic view of morality to call either of these good.  The ending has the exact same flaw, but multiplied to a galactic scale.  In almost all other situations they gave Shepard the right to chose unity, understanding, diversity, and freedom, except at the end.  That is ultimately why I say this.  I wasn't allowed any option that even remotely came close to these very important character aspects.  It also feels like the game reached out, broke the 4th wall, and made "me" the player a mass murderer in some misguided attempt to force a sacrifice out of me.  If I were really shepard, I would have said aw screw it, thrown my gun down, and slowly bled to death in front of the catalyst.  Heck the first time I did just that, I tried to find a way to go back down.  I'd rather go out in a blaze of glory trying to shoot down harbinger with my unlimited ammo pistol than any of the presented choices.

Personally I didn't mind most cases where BioWare presents me with few options, but they made the options different enough that I could enjoy them.  They'll never make all options, but they should at least try to make the ones they do present different enough to lead to different understanding.  I felt that the lack of any option other than to accept the catalysts logic is an insurmountable flaw in the ending.  If I must accept his logic, it is literally telling me to stop thinking so hard because it isn't worth it.  The self-proclaimed leader of the million-year genocide death robot reapers is telling me what to do.  He describes a problem he's trying to solve so incompletely and Shepard accepts it so totaly that I as the player can no longer relate.  It is as if Shepard hasn't been paying attention to the events around him. Some have called it contrived, and I certainly agree to a large extent.  But there is risk in contrived events, if they don't fit the series, they immediately brake the suspension of disbelief. From what you've said before, you might not have really had that?  I'm not sure and don't want to put words in your mouth, but you do describe how you've always felt out of control, so I think to some degree that is an accurate statement.  I didn't and this jarred me right out of the story.  It is a testament to how good BioWare really is that I felt like I had control, even though on an intellectual level, I knew I really didn't.   It is also a testament to how far they missed the mark that they completely jarred not just me, but many othere straight out of the story with the end.

Ultimately the ending isn't full of "bad ideas" so much as doesn't fit the Mass Effect narrative.  I actually kinda like the ideas, in a vaccum at least.  The Reapers are tyring to stop all organic life from being wiped out by preventing the technological singularity.  Or at least that's what I think they are doing.  The problem is that these themes, are barely explored at all.  From the narrative of Mass Effect, I have no reason to fear synthetics other than the reapers.  Or rather no reason to fear the synthetics simply because they are synthetic.  The geth are very much given stake as real sentients, regardless of whether you kill them or not.  EDI is more or less human at the end of the series whether you are a jerk or not.  They both make emotional journeys, but nowhere does it talk about some inevitable conflict due to synthetics outpacing organics in intelligence, resources, or just plain taking an idea to far.  Nowhere but the Reapers themselves.  These things need to be discussed to set up this kind of thing at the end.  Otherwise, well, you see what happens.  

[DoctorCrowtgamer]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

DoctorCrowtgamer wrote...

Well I think the idea that anyone who doesn't use it will be killed thus keeping the message as the only way to save life is if all people become part of the same race would have still rubbed me a bit wrong,but I guess it would not have been as bad.

I wasn't  going for the idea that anyone who didn't use it would be killed, but rather the idea that a significant number of people had to decide to embrace the technology in order to win. If enough people volunteered, they could theoretically save the universe while a significant population remained pure synthetic or pure organic.

I think that an integrated society that contains pure synthetics, pure biotics, and a lot of people who occupy the spectrum in between would be much truer to the game's existing themes than one where everyone is hybridized, so I was trying to think of a situation where we'd need to have a huge number of people volunteer to by hybrids while creating and preserving synthetic/organic diversity.

Yeah i guess I could live with that.

It just the idea that the only way to have peace is if some people change their make up instead of organics and synthetic having to learn to live togheter just feels I bit off to me.

I know I haven't explained what my problem is very well and to be honest I am not sure if I can or if anyone else should have the same problem because it's more of a gut feeling then something happening in my head.  Sorry I could not explain it better.  You seem to have put a lot of thought into this,great job.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

DoctorCrowtgamer wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

DoctorCrowtgamer wrote...

Well I think the idea that anyone who doesn't use it will be killed thus keeping the message as the only way to save life is if all people become part of the same race would have still rubbed me a bit wrong,but I guess it would not have been as bad.

I wasn't  going for the idea that anyone who didn't use it would be killed, but rather the idea that a significant number of people had to decide to embrace the technology in order to win. If enough people volunteered, they could theoretically save the universe while a significant population remained pure synthetic or pure organic.

I think that an integrated society that contains pure synthetics, pure biotics, and a lot of people who occupy the spectrum in between would be much truer to the game's existing themes than one where everyone is hybridized, so I was trying to think of a situation where we'd need to have a huge number of people volunteer to by hybrids while creating and preserving synthetic/organic diversity.

Yeah i guess I could live with that.

It just the idea that the only way to have peace is if some people change their make up instead of organics and synthetic having to learn to live togheter just feels I bit off to me.

I know I haven't explained what my problem is very well and to be honest I am not sure if I can or if anyone else should have the same problem because it's more of a gut feeling then something happening in my head.  Sorry I could not explain it better.  You seem to have put a lot of thought into this,great job.

To clarify, I do still hate the endings and I find them "thematically revolting," (This is just to say... I would buy that on a T-shirt) for all the reasons the OP and the Professor do. I'd much prefer something more sensible that emerges organically from the story and that fits with my perception of my Shepard's moral compass. Honestly, dying to kill the reapers without killing the Geth or EDI makes some amount of sense, and it sounds like they may very well retcon the "High EMS Destroy ending" that way... but if it is presented in the same way in the extended cut, if I'm just "gambling" on the idea that maybe the genocide button won't commit genocide, I don't feel that would be in character for my Shep at all.

That said, I do concede that the basic premises of the choices themselves do have some relation to existing game themes. I'm just trying to further point out that the choices being "not completely terrible and meaningless" in a vaccuum is irrelevant - they need to not be terrible in context.

I'm not hopeful for the extended cut, because the changes in context that would be required to make these decisions remotely palatable seems to be beyond the scope of what they've suggested is on offer. Perhaps they will prove me wrong.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 18 avril 2012 - 02:35 .

[ChickenMan77]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

DoctorCrowtgamer wrote...

That still leaves the problem that morally none of those three choices are something my shepard would have gone with because they all violated something he believed in.

True. I'd prefer an option that isn't monstrous to the vast majority of Shepards, but the point of my post above was to show how, even if the choices themselves had been valid, they were presented in a way that did the most damage to the illusion of reasonableness and agency.

I'm curious, though... if the Synthetic ending had been more "release the synthesis technology, which existing organics and synthetics can choose whether or not to use in order to save themselves," rather than "cyborg button!" would it still have been morally repugnant to you? 

Plus did you see the plants in synthesis that's what freaked me out the most when I picked that one my first time I felt like the kid tricked me..didn't mention the face melting either..I found turning every livng green thing in the galaxy into some circuit board or whatever  truly horrifying..not to mention Joker ..didn't even fix his limp....Now I always would go with destroy at least I see the reapers go down.... some resolution in that for me

[Scottsdale1984]

i have to say that this has to be the most intelligent and civil discussion, minus a few people, on BSN. And i would like to thank all the people who have kept things at this high level. Prof i have to say you perfectly captured my feelings on the ending, it just plain smacks in the face of the flow of the narrative

[Scottsdale1984]

Plus did you see the plants in synthesis that's what freaked me out the most when I picked that one my first time I felt like the kid tricked me..didn't mention the face melting either..I found turning every livng green thing in the galaxy into some circuit board or whatever  truly horrifying..not to mention Joker ..didn't even fix his limp....Now I always would go with destroy at least I see the reapers go down.... some resolution in that for me

[/quote]
i'm glad i'm not the only one that is really bugged by that

Modifié par Scottsdale1984, 18 avril 2012 - 02:46 .

[optimistickied]

generalleo03 wrote...

I like your thoughts here.  Completely agree that our choices have always been limited.  But My real point of contention, the real reason I say it wasn't "my shepard" is about morality.  The game consistently gives very similar outcomes (ultimately) to both renegade and paragon choices.  I would say paragon is "better" only in the sense that more people tend to survive.  Unlike the previous two games, which ultimately had a major moral choice at the end (save the council or don't? save the base or don't? ) This didn't feel like a moral choice to me.  It felt like a bunch of amoral, poorly understood choices.  Since I have literally no information, and most especially no reason to trust the catalyst, I cannot reason about it morally.  And while I agree to some extent that amoral choices can work, I don't agree it belongs in Mass Effect.  The closest point that the previous narrative came to this was legions loyalty mission.  I would contend it is poorly reasoned morally.  I felt both choices were wrong (really brainwashing or killing?).  I also felt that killing them was by far and away more moral than brainwashing.  What's worse?  Dying for a cause you chose to believe in or being brainwashed, and possibly forced to fight against said cause because then you'd be alive?  It really has and completely and totally simplistic view of morality to call either of these good.  The ending has the exact same flaw, but multiplied to a galactic scale.  In almost all other situations they gave Shepard the right to chose unity, understanding, diversity, and freedom, except at the end.  That is ultimately why I say this.  I wasn't allowed any option that even remotely came close to these very important character aspects.  It also feels like the game reached out, broke the 4th wall, and made "me" the player a mass murderer in some misguided attempt to force a sacrifice out of me.  If I were really shepard, I would have said aw screw it, thrown my gun down, and slowly bled to death in front of the catalyst.  Heck the first time I did just that, I tried to find a way to go back down.  I'd rather go out in a blaze of glory trying to shoot down harbinger with my unlimited ammo pistol than any of the presented choices.

Personally I didn't mind most cases where BioWare presents me with few options, but they made the options different enough that I could enjoy them.  They'll never make all options, but they should at least try to make the ones they do present different enough to lead to different understanding.  I felt that the lack of any option other than to accept the catalysts logic is an insurmountable flaw in the ending.  If I must accept his logic, it is literally telling me to stop thinking so hard because it isn't worth it.  The self-proclaimed leader of the million-year genocide death robot reapers is telling me what to do.  He describes a problem he's trying to solve so incompletely and Shepard accepts it so totaly that I as the player can no longer relate.  It is as if Shepard hasn't been paying attention to the events around him. Some have called it contrived, and I certainly agree to a large extent.  But there is risk in contrived events, if they don't fit the series, they immediately brake the suspension of disbelief. From what you've said before, you might not have really had that?  I'm not sure and don't want to put words in your mouth, but you do describe how you've always felt out of control, so I think to some degree that is an accurate statement.  I didn't and this jarred me right out of the story.  It is a testament to how good BioWare really is that I felt like I had control, even though on an intellectual level, I knew I really didn't.   It is also a testament to how far they missed the mark that they completely jarred not just me, but many othere straight out of the story with the end.

Ultimately the ending isn't full of "bad ideas" so much as doesn't fit the Mass Effect narrative.  I actually kinda like the ideas, in a vaccum at least.  The Reapers are tyring to stop all organic life from being wiped out by preventing the technological singularity.  Or at least that's what I think they are doing.  The problem is that these themes, are barely explored at all.  From the narrative of Mass Effect, I have no reason to fear synthetics other than the reapers.  Or rather no reason to fear the synthetics simply because they are synthetic.  The geth are very much given stake as real sentients, regardless of whether you kill them or not.  EDI is more or less human at the end of the series whether you are a jerk or not.  They both make emotional journeys, but nowhere does it talk about some inevitable conflict due to synthetics outpacing organics in intelligence, resources, or just plain taking an idea to far.  Nowhere but the Reapers themselves.  These things need to be discussed to set up this kind of thing at the end.  Otherwise, well, you see what happens.  

Sure, at this point, all of our decisions have delineated into one basic color-coded moral domain. Now suddenly the blue option doesn't feel very honorable... and the red option does. The actual choices aren't morally absolute; we may not be able to protect the status quo. It's a challenging scenario, moreso because the information we received to base it on is vague. Did you want to trust the Catalyst? Nobody does. And yet...

What choice do we have?

Admittedly, it feels out of place, but it's interesting, kind of. I think it is.

The same feeling happened to me. Seriously. I was so immersed in Shepard's quest, so comfortable with the game's progression, that the shift violently jolted me out of that frame of mind. When the Catalyst proved difficult to digest, when my options appeared limited and undefined, when Shepard is stripped of his power to be sacrificed with no real understanding of what his legacy will be, I was crazy. How protective I'd become over Shepard!

Yet, I thought it was a fantastic feeling of dread and anticipation, of confusion and anger and sickness and... yeah, I'm one of those. I sat there wondering if I had made the right decision, considering all I'd done, all I'd achieved. It was a cool experience.

However, I totally see your point. I just can't argue against it. The ending may well be notoriously contrived and utterly logic deficient, but even just you and I seem to have seen the endings in vastly different ways.

Modifié par optimistickied, 18 avril 2012 - 03:10 .

[Exeider]

AdmLancel wrote...

I like it when the crazy notions I come up with are independently verified by college professors.

that's called peer reviewed....

-AE