5087 réponses à ce sujet

[MrFob]

delta_vee wrote...

MrFob wrote...

I think the build-up can actually be a point that works in favour of the plot twist.
The beauty of the dark energy ending IMO was that even though their reasons can be justified in the larger context, you still do not sympathise with them, you merely get some grasp of the necessity.

This requires a two-pronged approach, and timing is critical.

To grasp the necessity, you have to establish the legitimacy of the larger threat early and often. Not in an obvious manner, of course - but when you reach the fulcrum, the player has to be able to look back and say "yes, that makes sense". If they'd carried the dark energy plotline through ME3 properly, they might have stood a chance, but the only real mention of it is in the Crucible codex entries. As it stands, with the paucity of discussion throughout ME3, it would still appear seemingly out of nowhere.

The harder part, and the most crucial, is that whatever horrific thing you're asking the player to accept as a necessary solution must be impervious to all but the most dedicated of criticism. It absolutely cannot produce a reaction of bewilderment or befuddlement in the player, and it must withstand the majority of questions the player is likely to ask (and, given the dialogue wheel, the player will want to ask these things through Shepard). This is where the dark energy plot fails, miserably. Turning humans to jelly is viscerally repulsive - and makes little sense as it is - so to think that this would somehow stave off a galaxy's worth of supernovas is ridiculous enough that few would even consider it, much less accept it. Certainly not at the expense of the characters they've spent three games growing to love.

If Mass Effect wishes so badly to be grimdark, then we should take 40K is an acceptable comparison. And in 40K, the Imperium commits so many atrocities they've lost track of them - but the enemies against which Exterminatus is employed are convincingly threatening, and despite the terrible cost the necessity is clear. Dark energy might have achieved the former, but has such a steep uphill climb to achieve the latter that I doubt it could possibly succeed. I suspect Bioware agreed, which is why it was dropped.

Why they thought this would suffice in its stead I will likely never understand.

I am not saying it would be easy and I think to get this right they would have had to majorly restructure the whole game (mind you I am talking about the dark energy plot as a general idea, not as it was incorporated into the leaked script). When I think of how the dark energy ending could have played out, I never imagine just changing the last 20 minutes of the game but basically to restart at the end of ME2.
I absolutely agree that a lot of foreshadowing and legitimization of the threat is needed to make this work, hence the restructuring of the games plot line.
I also agree that the whole reasoning of turning the genetically diverse humans into reapers in order to somehow defeat the dark energy threat is absurd and - as such - will not work at all to convince the main character or the player.

So yes, major changes would be needed in order to make this plot line work. However, I never wanted to argue the specifics of this particular example. I just wanted to make the point that it IS possible to give the reapers a reason for what they are doing (even if you build them up as the ultimate evil first) and yet not to demean them to a point where the whole story around them falls apart. IMO the rudimentary preparations that were made for the dark energy plot show that potential even if they were scrapped long before they could be fleshed out to a point where they are feasible.

Unfortunately I am not at all familiar with the warhammer universe in any incarnation but from what you are saying it sounds to me like they use this exact paradigm and just stretched it out to encompass a whole story on it's own rather then one defining moment in the plot.

[Specialis Sapientia]

I just completed the game.. I agree wholeheartedly with the professor. The ending is simply not consistent with the rest of the game, in how decisions are made and what options are available.. The three options in the ending are simply not acceptable as they ALL GO AGAINST WHAT SHEPARD FOUGHT FOR!

This is a much better ending, read if it you haven't!
http://arkis.deviant...ILERS-289902125

[KitaSaturnyne]

Welcome to the thread, Specialis Sapientia! We welcome any and all. Chips and dip are on the table, if you like.

[delta_vee]

MrFob wrote...

So yes, major changes would be needed in order to make this plot line work. However, I never wanted to argue the specifics of this particular example. I just wanted to make the point that it IS possible to give the reapers a reason for what they are doing (even if you build them up as the ultimate evil first) and yet not to demean them to a point where the whole story around them falls apart. IMO the rudimentary preparations that were made for the dark energy plot show that potential even if they were scrapped long before they could be fleshed out to a point where they are feasible.

I think you're right in that it's possible to give the Reapers a reason which carries an air of necessity which could be accepted by the player on its own merits, but I think it would only soften, not eliminate, what I'll call the "I shot Mordin in the back to beat you" moral objection. Since we are given through all three games multiple oppotunities to make smaller compromises, to deal with lesser evils, we need to be given at all times a larger threat to make those smaller sacrifices (of people and of principles) count for something. Turning around at the end and telling the player "you shot Mordin in the back for nothing" is devastating, regardless of how well you elucidate the necessity of the larger compromise to the player.

It's another form of the same essential problem many have with the destruction of the relays. It feels like an invalidation, like a decimation, of everything the player has done, has sacrificed, has accomplished, to get to that point. If you're going to base your game around a choice like that, I think it has to come earlier than the final minutes, to avoid the "why didn't Sovereign tell me that back on fscking Virmire" effect, and prevent the player from deciding their time within the game was utterly wasted.

Unfortunately I am not at all familiar with the warhammer universe in any incarnation but from what you are saying it sounds to me like they use this exact paradigm and just stretched it out to encompass a whole story on it's own rather then one defining moment in the plot.

There's no one plot in Warhammer per se. It's a big place. Exterminatus (the complete destruction of a planet's surface, remaining allies and civilians included) is an occasionally-necessary solution in extremis, done when a planet is otherwise lost to the enemy. And in 40K there are many, many enemies, all too terrible to allow them another foothold. Pyrrhic victories are accepted as a matter of course. This is reinforced in the setting over and over, consistently and insistently - something Mass Effect does quite the opposite of.

Nyoka wrote...

So it would look like there is a disconnect on what victory means for the fans and for the company. I for one don't know what it means to break down principles and build them up again. Can you find examples throughout the trilogy of the game doing that?

I...don't know.

That was a joke.

I think he said "break down into its principles and build them up again", referring (I believe) to the process of establishing a larger moral context perhaps different from our own, but made up of recognizable pieces. You can almost see what he's getting at in the way the ending is structured - once we reach the Catalyst, the Reapers are defeated (from his POV, obviously), but the price is always the relays. We are expected to agree that any price is acceptable, that the relays' destruction is getting off lightly, and that whatever Synthesis is supposed to be is the true path of lasting peace.

That they failed so spectacularly at doing so is, of course, why we're here.

Modifié par delta_vee, 13 mai 2012 - 04:46 .

[delta_vee]

 @MrFob:

Rereading some of your posts from the last few days, I realized I should probably clarify my position somewhat. It's not that I object to the kind of perspective-questioning choice you're discussing per se. My objections are more to do with a) the point at which the choice is made, the nature of the options in the context of the game up to that point, and c) the overall context the choice is placed in from the beginning.

A) Placing the option to side with your ostensible antagonist at the very end of the game runs a very high risk of invalidating the game itself. Even if the dark-energy plotline were constructed properly, it's far too easy to infer that your actions throughout were useless or counter-productive. If the Reapers' goal is a necessary one, then discovering this at the very end of a three-game campaign to stop them by any means is a tragedy of timing above all, which undercuts the premise and transforms the sacrifices to date from tragedy to pathos. This is evident in the Destroy ending as is, with the current crop of synthetic lifeforms placed on the chopping block despite potentially saving them from destruction earlier in the game.

If the solution presented resembles the antagonist's own too closely, or if the price of a new one is too steep, the audience will reject it out of hand so as to avoid the same effect on their own game as A). Thus, even if you bring the audience to an understanding of the Reapers' necessity, there is still a cognitive barrier to acceptance unless some measure of victory is still provided. This is what happened with Control, as it is viewed with derision from many and skepticism from the rest, despite being the option with the fewest casualties (the Citadel survives) and the smallest reversal of principles (the galaxy isn't forced into an unknown, invasive conversion). This is also the main source of squeamishness derived from the relays' destruction in all three endings, and the resultant desire to reject the Catalyst entirely (either to attempt a conventional victory or at least to let Liara's warning capsules do their job for the next cycle). 

C) If the antagonist has been placed in the role of ultimate evil, and given no sympathy nor understanding prior to the option to side with them, then a last-minute reversal of this is doomed to emotional rejection no matter how compelling the logic. Such an understanding must be groomed over the span of the game, and the player must be given cause to question their own actions in the scope of the larger conflict, not just the smaller decisions along the way. This is where Synthesis fails, as it presents itself as a (maddenly vague) solution to a problem not previously cultivated as the larger conflict. Our goal in all three games has been "stop the Reapers", and this is directly due to the atrocities they inflict - and future considerations (whether the spread of dark energy, the threat of the Singularity, or even just the prospect of future Krogan expansionism) are rendered moot in the face of them. Even if dark energy had been properly elaborated as a greater threat looming, we have to be given indications much earlier that the Reapers' evil is the lesser, that there is some net benefit to their actions. Otherwise, the threat of extinction now will always supersede the threat of galactic destruction later, and virtually every player will elect to take their chances instead of allow the Reapers to continue - and that's not a very exciting choice, is it?

Addendum: All of that said, the handling of the genophage meets all of those criteria. We are given multiple pieces of evidence that the genophage was a brutal but necessary solution at the time, and our time on Tuchanka was designed to give us both hope for Krogan redemption as well as fear of their unchecked resurgence. We are given the option to leave the genophage in place only after the possibility of its necessity has been properly established. The only element muddying the waters at the last minute is the specific, personal cost: shooting a friend in the back (and even then, we're given an out in some throughlines). But the player's actions until that point of decision have been orthogonal to the genophage itself - we don't fight the Salarians or Turians over it, we don't have a choice to allow Saren's supposed cure to survive, and Mordin's loyalty mission is about him, his student, and lesser atrocities carried out in the name of a cure. We are only given the chance to directly, tangibly support or oppose the genophage's presence at the end, which is also the only time we are asked for a binding decision.

Modifié par delta_vee, 13 mai 2012 - 07:01 .

[M0keys]

Nyoka wrote...

I don't know if you guys have discussed this already, I thought this bit might be relevant to this thread.

"One of my favorite movies is Gladiator. There's an amazing structural thing that happens in Gladiator around the value system they set up and what victory means for the hero in that movie, which is ultimately for him ... to be able to die and be with his family. Understanding these kinds of things from all entertainment and being able to break them down into their principles and then build those principles back up into something fresh, that's what we try to do."

But Maximus died only because Commodus stabbed him. He didn't kill himself. Yeah, it's cool he sees his family, but he was fighting to save Rome and avenge his family.

Modifié par M0keys, 13 mai 2012 - 07:11 .

[edisnooM]

I was thinking again about the Catalyst conversation and specifically about the Synthetics vs Organics aspect of it.

It struck me as weird that we were allowed to make peace between the Geth and the Quarians earlier in the game, and that if this was truly how they wanted the game to go it would have been better for them to require us to choose one or the either. It then made me realize that this was the first time that I can recall Mass Effect telling me I made the wrong choice.

Throughout the series we have made choices and dealt with the outcomes. Sometimes the results were bad but it was usually our judgement that ruled on it. For instance sending the wrong person into the vents in ME2. It's a bad choice (unless you were trying to kill someone) and we can see that, but the game doesn't tell us we were wrong, it just carries on. Sometimes people remark on our decisions, however in the end Shepard's choice is accepted.

But then at the end of ME3 if you have made peace on Rannoch you are essentially told "No you were wrong, peace is impossible. Now choose a solution."

This is probably a bit rambling, but it was just another thing that the ending made me think of.

[RamilVenoard]

edisnooM wrote...

I was thinking again about the Catalyst conversation and specifically about the Synthetics vs Organics aspect of it.

It struck me as weird that we were allowed to make peace between the Geth and the Quarians earlier in the game, and that if this was truly how they wanted the game to go it would have been better for them to require us to choose one or the either. It then made me realize that this was the first time that I can recall Mass Effect telling me I made the wrong choice.

*snip*

The game chastizes the player unless synthesis is the choice made.  I was discussing this (via text message I might add which was a royal pain in the a*s) with a pro-ender who is a friend of mine and we came to the conclusion that the dissatisfaction with the end comes entirely from the reason for which the player has emersed himself/herself in the video game.  I shall explain.

I am rather against the endings because I play mass effect out of some pathological need to be a hero--to matter in some way.  I play it as an escape from societal woes and from the humdrum regularities that surround us in contemporary society.

My friend, the pro-ender I mentioned, sees Sythensis not as homogenization (and thus, bad) but as the future of our society--NOT literally. But figuratively. Both of us are studying computer science and going into AI research because it is our fascination, and clearly enough to both of us, society is already synthesized. AKA, we evolved through our machines.  Our capabilities as a species expand based on the technological capabilities of our synthetic creations.  We agreed very strongly upon this point.

And so, back to my original idea in this post, my dissatisfaction came from the idea that I am not playing a video game for a figurative or symbolic purpose.  Yes I see the message that BioWare was attempting to impart, but I still have difficulty accepting it because I played the entire series from a literal perspective.  He played the game as a long allegory for society--the very thing I was attempting to escape in the first place.

Anyhow, that was long, but I hope you actually read it because I think it describes an interseting turn of events, not to mention it provides an adequate explanation for my nerd rage.

Modifié par RamilVenoard, 13 mai 2012 - 10:16 .

[edisnooM]

RamilVenoard wrote...

edisnooM wrote...

I was thinking again about the Catalyst conversation and specifically about the Synthetics vs Organics aspect of it.

It struck me as weird that we were allowed to make peace between the Geth and the Quarians earlier in the game, and that if this was truly how they wanted the game to go it would have been better for them to require us to choose one or the either. It then made me realize that this was the first time that I can recall Mass Effect telling me I made the wrong choice.

*snip*

The game chastizes the player unless synthesis is the choice made.  I was discussing this (via text message I might add which was a royal pain in the a*s) with a pro-ender who is a friend of mine and we came to the conclusion that the dissatisfaction with the end comes entirely from the reason for which the player has emersed himself/herself in the video game.  I shall explain.

I am rather against the endings because I play mass effect out of some pathological need to be a hero--to matter in some way.  I play it as an escape from societal woes and from the humdrum regularities that surround us in contemporary society.

My friend, the pro-ender I mentioned, sees Sythensis not as homogenization (and thus, bad) but as the future of our society--NOT literally. But figuratively. Both of us are studying computer science and going into AI research because it is our fascination, and clearly enough to both of us, society is already synthesized. AKA, we evolved through our machines.  Our capabilities as a species expand based on the technological capabilities of our synthetic creations.  We agreed very strongly upon this point.

And so, back to my original idea in this post, my dissatisfaction came from the idea that I am not playing a video game for a figurative or symbolic purpose.  Yes I see the message that BioWare was attempting to impart, but I still have difficulty accepting it because I played the entire series from a literal perspective.  He played the game as a long allegory for society--the very thing I was attempting to escape in the first place.

Anyhow, that was long, but I hope you actually read it because I think it describes an interseting turn of events, not to mention it provides an adequate explanation for my nerd rage.

Thats a good point and I think it helps point out the different ways in which people can approach a story.

For instance I think many stories can be used as allegory for society as the Bard (Shakespeare not Burns) said "the mirror to nature", but then there's also the Orson Scott Card quote:

“We don't read novels to have an experience like life. Heck, we're living lives, complete with all the incompleteness. We turn to fiction to have an author assure us that it means something.” 

In the end I guess it all comes down to personal perspective, which is why some people like the ending while others do not. Darn us all for having opinions. 

Modifié par edisnooM, 13 mai 2012 - 11:43 .

[delta_vee]

RamilVenoard wrote...

And so, back to my original idea in this post, my dissatisfaction came from the idea that I am not playing a video game for a figurative or symbolic purpose.  Yes I see the message that BioWare was attempting to impart, but I still have difficulty accepting it because I played the entire series from a literal perspective.  He played the game as a long allegory for society--the very thing I was attempting to escape in the first place.

The most valuable works, I've found, work on both levels simultaneously. My old English teacher had what he called the "two-pizza" theory: the superficial, straightforward reading of a work is the pizza you see when you open the box; the symbolic, allegorical, applicable content embedded in the story is like opening the bottom of the box and finding a whole other pizza underneath. Some people are content with the first pizza - they only ordered one, after all. Others don't care about the first pizza and go straight for the second - there is (unfortunately) a perspective amongst certain literary types (present company obviously excluded) who think pepperoni and cheese is all the first pizza's good for. The best, of course, is when both pizzas are delicious.

Pizza aside, I certainly find it interesting how the main determinant of ending acceptance is seemingly the acceptance of the symbolic shift of the Ten Minutes. I'm all for applicability and references and symbolism, but a literalist work like ME has to function on that level continuously and completely, and anything else is extra.

[delta_vee]

@edisnooM:

Aside from his late-career dive into homophobia and seeming disconnection form reality, Card's written some excellent stuff on the nature of stories. You ever read his essays in Maps in a Mirror?

Modifié par delta_vee, 14 mai 2012 - 12:20 .

[edisnooM]

delta_vee wrote...

@edisnooM:

Aside from his late-career dive into homophobia and seeming disconnection form reality, Card's written some excellent stuff on the nature of stories. You ever read his essays in Maps in a Mirror?

I must confess the only work of Card's that I have read is Ender's Game. I keep meaning to read Ender's Shadow and Speaker for the Dead but never seem to get around to it. Is Maps in a Mirror worth reading?

[delta_vee]

edisnooM wrote...

I must confess the only work of Card's that I have read is Ender's Game. I keep meaning to read Ender's Shadow and Speaker for the Dead but never seem to get around to it. Is Maps in a Mirror worth reading?

Speaker, yes. Shadow, no. MiaM, yes, because it contains one of my favorite short stories ("A Thousand Deaths") and one of the best essays on science fiction I've read, wherein he talks about how SF has the unique ability to "rationalize the transcendent", as he puts it.

[edisnooM]

delta_vee wrote...

edisnooM wrote...

I must confess the only work of Card's that I have read is Ender's Game. I keep meaning to read Ender's Shadow and Speaker for the Dead but never seem to get around to it. Is Maps in a Mirror worth reading?

Speaker, yes. Shadow, no. MiaM, yes, because it contains one of my favorite short stories ("A Thousand Deaths") and one of the best essays on science fiction I've read, wherein he talks about how SF has the unique ability to "rationalize the transcendent", as he puts it.

All right, I shall amend my to read list accordingly.

[M.Erik.Sal]

delta_vee wrote...

edisnooM wrote...

I must confess the only work of Card's that I have read is Ender's Game. I keep meaning to read Ender's Shadow and Speaker for the Dead but never seem to get around to it. Is Maps in a Mirror worth reading?

Speaker, yes. Shadow, no. MiaM, yes, because it contains one of my favorite short stories ("A Thousand Deaths") and one of the best essays on science fiction I've read, wherein he talks about how SF has the unique ability to "rationalize the transcendent", as he puts it.

I'm going to second the recommendation on Speaker. I have rarely been as affected by a book as I was by that one, which speaks to Card's ability as a writer and only serves to intensify the disappointment that I feel in how he turned into (or revealed himself to be)  a frankly terrible person.

Now I only wish I had something relevant to add to the rest of the ongoing discussion, but as I don't I'll return to lurking.

[edisnooM]

M.Erik.Sal wrote...

Now I only wish I had something relevant to add to the rest of the ongoing discussion, but as I don't I'll return to lurking.

Feel free to step out of the shadows again though, it's always good to have more voices / opinions in the discussion.

[Hawk227]

edisnooM wrote...

I was thinking again about the Catalyst conversation and specifically about the Synthetics vs Organics aspect of it.

It struck me as weird that we were allowed to make peace between the Geth and the Quarians earlier in the game, and that if this was truly how they wanted the game to go it would have been better for them to require us to choose one or the either. It then made me realize that this was the first time that I can recall Mass Effect telling me I made the wrong choice.

Throughout the series we have made choices and dealt with the outcomes. Sometimes the results were bad but it was usually our judgement that ruled on it. For instance sending the wrong person into the vents in ME2. It's a bad choice (unless you were trying to kill someone) and we can see that, but the game doesn't tell us we were wrong, it just carries on. Sometimes people remark on our decisions, however in the end Shepard's choice is accepted.

But then at the end of ME3 if you have made peace on Rannoch you are essentially told "No you were wrong, peace is impossible. Now choose a solution."

This is probably a bit rambling, but it was just another thing that the ending made me think of.

This might be the single biggest reason that the Organics vs. Synthetics justification fails. Not only is it an ( extremely weak) attempt at making the Reapers sympathetic (a no-go in its own right), but it is directly contradicted by the preceding events.

We can sit here and say that with a non-zero probability and infinite time, the Catalyst is probably right, but we're dealing in the here and now. In the here and now, we united the Geth and the Quarians. In the here and now, we've built relationships and trust with the avatars of synthetic life (Legion and EDI). In the here and now, it is the Reapers that threaten organic life. So any player that didn't blow off EDI and the Geth* as machines that ought to do what they're told hears the Catalyst's justification for the Reaper's existence and rolls their eyes. Within a time scale that is meaningul to us to us, we have evidence that disproves the assertion. We're then left with three options that (at best) are only justified if the Catalyst's reason is valid, but to our eyes it is not.

Which makes it totally bizarre that in a game that seems to emphasize the growth, "humanity", and value of synthetic life, that we are left with an end that seems inclined to invalidate all of that. It's like the journey and the end were written in sepate vacuums, and pasted together at the end without consideration to how they fit together.

*Awesome Band Name.

Modifié par Hawk227, 14 mai 2012 - 02:12 .

[Sable Phoenix]

I have to disagree about the Ender's Game sequels. While the Speaker for the Dead trilogy left me cold, Ender's Shadow and its sequels (especially its sequels) were utterly fantastic.

[edisnooM]

Sable Phoenix wrote...

I have to disagree about the Ender's Game sequels. While the Speaker for the Dead trilogy left me cold, Ender's Shadow and its sequels (especially its sequels) were utterly fantastic.

Argh, conlicting opinions.
Only one option left: Read them all and let my mind sort them out. 

[Deathfromabo]

One of the things i found particularily jarring, if we are going to talk about literature, is the poetic refrences in the game made by Ashley. In the first game we have her quoting Tennyson's famous poem "Ulysses"www.portablepoetry.com/poems/alfredlord_tennyson/ulysses.html, which in retrospec seems like a perfect fit for the entire series as a whole, I always imagined the end of the series would feel like the final lines of this poem, which was compounded with the Invictus refrence made by Ashley in ME3, after she recovers from the hospital. Invictus is all about overcoming the odds no matter what,  I thought the writers were going for some good foreshadowing by refrencing it but nope, they might as well have made allusions to Macbeth's final solilque in "Macbeth":
"Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale,
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing"
Certianly it seemed like it signified nothing by the end.

Modifié par Deathfromabo, 14 mai 2012 - 02:37 .

[delta_vee]

In a similar vein, from Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead:

"We're more of the love, blood and rhetoric school. Well, we can do you blood and love without the rhetoric, and we can do you blood and rhetoric without the love, and we can do you all three concurrent or consecutive. But we can't give you love and rhetoric without the blood. Blood is compulsory. They're all blood, you see."

[Rhaigun]

The obscurities in the ending of Mass Effect 3 have not been similarly earned by its prior narrative. This narrative has not until this point been about dominance, extermination, and the imposition of uniformity – indeed, Shepard has spent over a hundred hours of narrative fighting against precisely these three themes. And if one of these three (and only these three) options must be selected in order to sustain life in the universe, then that life has been so devalued by that act as to make the sacrifice meaningless.

This last paragraph basically sums it up fpr me. I spend countless hours trying to get everyone to empathize with one another, and then I have no choice to support that?

[Fapmaster5000]

If we work off the statements/assumptions that Synthesis is the "best" ending, then I think we might actually be seeing a problem where the writers succeeded too well at their argument.

Consider: there are two components to Synthesis. The first is philosophical, that Organics and Synthetics need each other to thrive, and that by uniting and overcoming our differences, we can produce a better galaxy. The second is physical, the mechanical green beam of light that merges the two into one whole.

Now, with that in mind, imagine an in-universe viewpoint, where (somewhat-Renegade) Shepard is beset on all sides by synthetic threats. Geth butcher colonies and hide in the dark, destroying their own creators as a birthing pang, and skittering around the edges of civilization, unknowable, unbiddable, and threatening. Rampant VIs burst into view, with raging births very similar in threat, on Luna, in Overlord, on unknown stations in the Terminus. The Reapers, synthetic boogeymen from the deep void, lurk always beyond the veil, ready to pounce, their ominous presence building like a thrumming engine below the floorboard, until they emerge with all their horror.

Imagine further, this Shepard, who never activates Legion, who never trusts EDI, who chooses the Quarians over the geth, or the geth for their raw power (but never trusts them), as he staggers towards the Catalyst, the fear and weight of an era crushing down on him, trying to drive the machines back, back into the void. The Catalyst speaks to this Shepard, and says, "This problem is not unique. You are not the victim. This is an inherent function of the cycle, and your solutions will not succeed."

For this Shepard, Synthesis might be revelation, a sudden flare of light in the black, a desperate, terrible gamble to escape a world of constant antagonism and fear between two alien existences. For this Shepard, the price of the physical Synthesis might be worth the gains, if this is indeed the last open window from a doomed hall.

...

The problem is, many of us (myself included) did not have THAT Shepard. The writers, starting in ME2, convinced us that this was not the nature of the Mass Effect galaxy. From the moment Legion turned on, from the moment Shepard took a leap of faith, not into a green beam, but to toggle on this odd geth that had saved him, Synthesis had begun. Through conversations with EDI, with Legion, through the Crucible of the Suicide Mission, paradigms shifted, and Shepard (and even geth-hating-Tali) came to understand that synthetics were not alien horrors, with whom conflict was inevitable, but simply other life-forms, with very different views. And humanity had overcome those bridges before, internally and externally, with each expanding sphere of knowledge, from horses to cars to mass relays.

The true Catalyst, then, was the Reaper War itself, the cause that united the disparate people together, organic and synthetic, to fight against the black will of extermination. Peace was forged on Rannoch, and geth fought in the united armies for Earth, as equals, and helped assemble the "Crucible", as equals. Synthesis, philosophically speaking, was already complete when Shepard boarded that beam up the Citadel. This was a united galaxy, with one form and goal: to drive out the Reapers, and win a free future, for all of them.

So when the Catalyst presented his green mutilation beam, it was a punch in the face. To say that, after all that, the only solution was homogenization? It flew in the face of the argument that the series had already made, won, and moved on from: synthesis had already occurred, and the "Catalyst" was just the last remnant of a flawed worldview, and the figurehead of the monsters that had driven it to completion.

Now, maybe that's not what the writers intended, but it sure seems to me that the problem might not be that we didn't get the ending, but that they played their final hand five hours early, and the would-be rousing grand finale became a farce instead.  (Unless of course, they simply wrote the ending to a different game, one far darker in tone.)

EDIT:  I actually had a thread a while back where I explored this angle a little bit.  I had performed a writing experiment, to see if I could twist the ending into something I could accept, while sticking within the listed confines of the EC.  My solution for Synthesis was pretty much addressing this point, by basically making it completely philosophical, a futuristic Stone Soup for the Catalyst AI to use to rewrite its own flawed code in Shepard's image, instead of rewriting reality.  Destroy became Defiance, and Control became Cooperation, and Synthesis became a sort of actualization for galactic post-Reaper civilization.

EDIT 2:  I came to this thought a while after the game came out, when I noticed that many of those who despised the endings played pure Paragon, or close to it, and I have to wonder if the ending is only so jarring to those of us who played Shepard as a true hero, and not an anti-hero or villain protagonist.  It would be interesting to run a comparison of "what was Shepard's alignment", "how completionist are you", and "how did you react to the ending".  We might get some surprising results.

Modifié par Fapmaster5000, 14 mai 2012 - 04:01 .

[edisnooM]

Fapmaster5000 wrote...

[Snipped reluctantly for size]

Very good post and analysis. And I think it would be interesting to see how different player styles along the moral compass reacted to the ending, and if that play style affected their enjoyment (or lack therof) in regards to the ending.

Modifié par edisnooM, 14 mai 2012 - 04:18 .