387 réponses à ce sujet

[omphaloskepsis]

Optimystic_X wrote...

drewelow wrote...
But, there are other issues that highlight the fact that the starchild is seriously untrustworthy, such as its use of the term "ascendance" to describe civilizations that have been destroyed and turned into its slaves for a billion years.  Control + ascendance = utter breakdown of the integrity of the starchild, and in the synthesis ending.  (Granted, you could argue that the writers meant well, and just screwed up, but that's a big, big screw up.)

He genuinely believes he is ascending these races. Whether he is WRONG is another matter.

drewelow wrote... 
My general point:  Shepard had reason to believe he/she was about to win, at the point the starchild appears.

Shepard's last statement before the Catalyst appears is that s/he doesn't know how to activate the Crucible. That doesn't sound like victory to me. S/he then passes out.

drewelow wrote...  
Quick summary of issues with dialog:  DNA doesn't work like that, evolution doesn't work like that, ascendance doesn't work like that, etc.

Arthur C. Clarke, blah blah.

drewelow wrote...  
I said:
Not easily explained, except by space magic.  To provide more detail:

(a) Assuming that anybody deduced the starchilds presence is silly.  The protheans would have done a lot more than just messing with the keepers, they probably would have tried to destroy the Citadel.   Also, even if a previous race had in some ridiculous manner (other than space magic) guessed at this, they'd need a lot of details to be able to develop an interface... unless we're talking space magic.
( random side effect = DEEP space magic

...then I went on to explain why space magic is generally accepted at the beginning, but not at the end of a story.

Mass Effect runs on space magic, denying it just because it doesn't do what you want it to do in this instance is disingenuous.

For your counterpooints:
(a) It's no sillier that determining you need the Citadel, the first structure to fall in every reaping, to begin with. Also, I'm glad you mentioned the keepers - there is a perfect example of designing for something you can't see. How did the Ilos folks develop the program to modify the keepers while not being on the Citadel? How did they even determine that the Keepers were the cause of their downfall, if everyone there was dead before they even realized they were under attack? So you see, it's possible for bright enougn minds to deduce information (or merely hypothesize it) without having to be physically located at the thing they're studying.

( Merely throwing out the term "space magic" does not bother me in the slightest, because the Crucible is but the latest example of such in the series.

You seem to meander and dodge issues.  I don't get that if we're having a civil discussion, but I feel like this is heading into an endless loop.  I don't know if it's a deliberate avoidance strategy, or if you're just getting distracted (or maybe  just tired), but it makes it difficult to focus on a topic.

The "Arthur C. Clarke" statement is apparently an insult, and definitely a dismissal.  That's fine, but I hope you understand that some people have a science background, and that there's a clear difference between "future science" or "potential science" and pure fantasy.  That's a dividing line for some people.  In a similar fashion, there are rules (or at least heuristics) to good writing and narrative coherence.  Again, that's a dividing line, though in this case we're talking about a lot more people.  There's nothing wrong if these types of issues don't hold value for you, but they do to a lot of people.

BTW, the Arthur C. Clarke reference may have been more appropriate than you realized.  Before becoming a sci-fi writer, he was a radar expert and mathematician.  He was actually the first to do the math required for geostationary orbits (also called Clarke Orbits).  One of the reasons why he was so respected as a sci-fi writer is that he really knew what he was talking about--and it showed in his work.

[PsyrenY]

drewelow wrote...

You seem to meander and dodge issues.  I don't get that if we're having a civil discussion, but I feel like this is heading into an endless loop.  I don't know if it's a deliberate avoidance strategy, or if you're just getting distracted (or maybe  just tired), but it makes it difficult to focus on a topic.

What have I "dodged?" Tell me so I can address it to your satisfaction.


 

drewelow wrote... 

The "Arthur C. Clarke" statement is apparently an insult, and definitely a dismissal.  That's fine, but I hope you understand that some people have a science background, and that there's a clear difference between "future science" or "potential science" and pure fantasy.  That's a dividing line for some people.  In a similar fashion, there are rules (or at least heuristics) to good writing and narrative coherence.  Again, that's a dividing line, though in this case we're talking about a lot more people.  There's nothing wrong if these types of issues don't hold value for you, but they do to a lot of people.

BTW, the Arthur C. Clarke reference may have been more appropriate than you realized.  Before becoming a sci-fi writer, he was a radar expert and mathematician.  He was actually the first to do the math required for geostationary orbits (also called Clarke Orbits).  One of the reasons why he was so respected as a sci-fi writer is that he really knew what he was talking about--and it showed in his work.

I mentioned him because, as posited by his own third law, he saw the distinction between "science" and "magic" being mere perspective. If you understand it, it's science; if not, it's magic. So the Crucible, to Clarke, would be "science I don't understand."


As for "good writing," that is unfortunately subjective. Where we agree, I think, is that the endings are inadequate; but whereas many people here want them scrapped entirely, myself (and other "pro-enders") see the vast potential in what we were given, and only need some of the blanks filled in to be fully satisfied.

Modifié par Optimystic_X, 19 avril 2012 - 07:09 .

[Turbotanden]

Optimystic_X wrote...
 

drewelow wrote... 

The "Arthur C. Clarke" statement is apparently an insult, and definitely a dismissal.  That's fine, but I hope you understand that some people have a science background, and that there's a clear difference between "future science" or "potential science" and pure fantasy.  That's a dividing line for some people.  In a similar fashion, there are rules (or at least heuristics) to good writing and narrative coherence.  Again, that's a dividing line, though in this case we're talking about a lot more people.  There's nothing wrong if these types of issues don't hold value for you, but they do to a lot of people.

BTW, the Arthur C. Clarke reference may have been more appropriate than you realized.  Before becoming a sci-fi writer, he was a radar expert and mathematician.  He was actually the first to do the math required for geostationary orbits (also called Clarke Orbits).  One of the reasons why he was so respected as a sci-fi writer is that he really knew what he was talking about--and it showed in his work.

I mentioned him because, as posited by his own third law, he saw the distinction between "science" and "magic" being mere perspective. If you understand it, it's science; if not, it's magic. So the Crucible, to Clarke, would be "science I don't understand."


As for "good writing," that is unfortunately subjective. Where we agree, I think, is that the endings are inadequate; but whereas many people here want them scrapped entirely, myself (and other "pro-enders") see the vast potential in what we were given, and only need some of the blanks filled in to be fully satisfied.

Clarke's third law doesn't really matter in this context though. The fact that the alliance built the crucible should enable them to give us some foretelling or understanding that would make us see that magic as science. Thats how everything else that could be called magic in the series is done, we're given a "scientific" reason for how stuff like mass relays or geth or indoctrination works. But the feeling we get is of a supernatural god-child creating miracles by using magic.

As for "good writing", I cannot sum things up better than this writer does:
All That Matters is the Ending

Modifié par Turbotanden, 19 avril 2012 - 07:42 .

[KingZayd]

Optimystic_X wrote...

KingZayd wrote...
By counsel i meant what it tells you about the choices. The Joker-EDI scene is just what Shepard imagines after he jumps (or imagines jumping into the beam). Even if you think the Joker-EDI scene is real, there is no guarrantee that the reapers won't come and kill everyone again.

1) I already told you that I completely discount IDT as nothing more than fanwank. So telling me what Shepard "imagines" is pointless. What we see is what happens.

2) Well, their leader tells you that it will end the cycle, but you don't trust him so... Unfortunately, if you're holding out for third-party verification, you're unlikely to get any. So I suppose picking Destroy (though that is still an option he presents) is valid if for some reason you think he's being deceitful, though I still fail to see what he would have to gain by doing so.

drewelow wrote...
But, there are other issues that highlight the fact that the starchild is seriously untrustworthy, such as its use of the term "ascendance" to describe civilizations that have been destroyed and turned into its slaves for a billion years.  Control + ascendance = utter breakdown of the integrity of the starchild, and in the synthesis ending.  (Granted, you could argue that the writers meant well, and just screwed up, but that's a big, big screw up.)

He genuinely believes he is ascending these races. Whether he is WRONG is another matter.

drewelow wrote... 
My general point:  Shepard had reason to believe he/she was about to win, at the point the starchild appears.

Shepard's last statement before the Catalyst appears is that s/he doesn't know how to activate the Crucible. That doesn't sound like victory to me. S/he then passes out.

drewelow wrote...  
Quick summary of issues with dialog:  DNA doesn't work like that, evolution doesn't work like that, ascendance doesn't work like that, etc.

Arthur C. Clarke, blah blah.

drewelow wrote...  
I said:
Not easily explained, except by space magic.  To provide more detail:

(a) Assuming that anybody deduced the starchilds presence is silly.  The protheans would have done a lot more than just messing with the keepers, they probably would have tried to destroy the Citadel.   Also, even if a previous race had in some ridiculous manner (other than space magic) guessed at this, they'd need a lot of details to be able to develop an interface... unless we're talking space magic.
( random side effect = DEEP space magic

...then I went on to explain why space magic is generally accepted at the beginning, but not at the end of a story.

Mass Effect runs on space magic, denying it just because it doesn't do what you want it to do in this instance is disingenuous.

For your counterpooints:
(a) It's no sillier that determining you need the Citadel, the first structure to fall in every reaping, to begin with. Also, I'm glad you mentioned the keepers - there is a perfect example of designing for something you can't see. How did the Ilos folks develop the program to modify the keepers while not being on the Citadel? How did they even determine that the Keepers were the cause of their downfall, if everyone there was dead before they even realized they were under attack? So you see, it's possible for bright enougn minds to deduce information (or merely hypothesize it) without having to be physically located at the thing they're studying.

( Merely throwing out the term "space magic" does not bother me in the slightest, because the Crucible is but the latest example of such in the series.

1) You dismiss it, and yet it makes far more sense than face value interpretation, and requires far less handwaving. The only reason for you to dismiss it is that you don't like it. Even if you don't think it's indoctrination, how and why does it take the image of the child that's been haunting your dreams? It must have probed your mind to get the image of the child, and the only reason to take it is to exploit your emotional vulnerabilities. If it has probed your mind, what else can it do to it? Also,I saw Anderson shoot the tube.. did that happen? I saw TIM grab those control rods, did that happen? 

2) Yes I don't trust the starchild. It admits to the slaughter of countless organics, and probes your mind, assuming the image that's been haunting your dreams to exploit your emotional vulnerabilities. Your first instinct should be doubt, and the Starchild says nothing to alleviate those doubts. Oh really "I control the reapers", So turning all these people into sludge and then a slave is ascension? right. Just think how differently other Shepards would have picked if it had appeared as StarSovereign. MANIPULATION.


a) it wouldn't have been possible if the Starchild was dormant, like you seem to think it was. If it was dormant, there would be no perceivable difference with it not existing.

Modifié par KingZayd, 19 avril 2012 - 10:57 .

[Biotic_Warlock]

Synthesis is supposed to be the pinnacle of evolution.
BieberReaper lieded maybe?

[Saodade]

Actually, with the actual elements I caught in game, I found Synthesis the only ending making it acceptable that my shepard don't die for nothing. Thane is dead. She said she would not be long to join him and she have no will to live anymore. So to die and save the universe and breaking the cycles was ok to her. She was dying anyway so she just picked an answer . She alway have been the one to try to understand others, even the ennemies. Look with the Rachni, the Geths...If she could have sweet talked her way out of the war to the reaper bosses all along in the game she would have.Of course if indoctrination is true she just cursed the whole universe for ever lol but hey she is dead now and she probably enjoy surfing or tanning on some wonderfull beach with her favorite Drell...On a parallel world in another dimension...

"cry"

Save Thane please!! Cure him add him in team and give us a big old fat boss fight of 1 hour to end and make Shepard go away happy with her love interest ;(

[PsyrenY]

Turbotanden wrote...

Clarke's third law doesn't really matter in this context though. The fact that the alliance built the crucible should enable them to give us some foretelling or understanding that would make us see that magic as science. Thats how everything else that could be called magic in the series is done, we're given a "scientific" reason for how stuff like mass relays or geth or indoctrination works. But the feeling we get is of a supernatural god-child creating miracles by using magic.

It does matter, because throughout the entire game you are foreshadowed that NOBODY, not even the people building the damn thing, know what the Crucible is supposed to actually do. In effect, all the plans showed them was "this can release stupidly massive amounts of energy" and there was a caption under the blueprint that said "for killing Reapers." Liara and Hackett looked at each other, said "seems legit" and got to building it. (Or rather - they said "gosh, I hope it's legit, we have no other options.")

Your argument is that people building it will know what it does; this is not always the case, even just within Mass Effect. The Quarians never set out to create the Geth as AI for instance, and the invention of Medigel was a total accident. Very often, what we seek to create and what we actually create are very different things.

Turbotanden wrote.
As for "good writing", I cannot sum things up better than this writer does:
All That Matters is the Ending

I can link articles too. The endings are much better, or at least has much more potential, than their detractors claim/believe.

[78stonewobble]

Roxy Lalonde wrote...

Kid clearly never took any science classes. "Final evolution" is practically an oxymoron. 
Also, I feel like Starchild reaaallly should've expanded on what the frak Synthesis even did. Yeah, it ~combines~ synthetic and organic life. Right. How. What parts of synthetic life does each organism get and how is that determined? SO MANY QUESTIONSSS.

THIS!...

In the light of only ingame information I assume green ending is the fairy tale ending.

*flash of green and people are a little green BUT everything continues as per usual. Now with reaper peace*

[Dessalines]

1) Synthesis description was basically the description that Saren gave you for not fighting the Reapers.
2) Basically, you performing rape on everyone in the galaxy. That is what happens when you insert your DNA into someone without their permission.

[omntt]

Synthesis is supposed to be an homage to Asimov's Foundation and Earth, but it ultimately fails, and epicly, too.

http://www.youtube.c...3MyTE80A#t=642s

[Ice Cold J]

Dessalines wrote...

1) Synthesis description was basically the description that Saren gave you for not fighting the Reapers.
2) Basically, you performing rape on everyone in the galaxy. That is what happens when you insert your DNA into someone without their permission.

This.

[Turbotanden]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Turbotanden wrote...

Clarke's third law doesn't really matter in this context though. The fact that the alliance built the crucible should enable them to give us some foretelling or understanding that would make us see that magic as science. Thats how everything else that could be called magic in the series is done, we're given a "scientific" reason for how stuff like mass relays or geth or indoctrination works. But the feeling we get is of a supernatural god-child creating miracles by using magic.

It does matter, because throughout the entire game you are foreshadowed that NOBODY, not even the people building the damn thing, know what the Crucible is supposed to actually do. In effect, all the plans showed them was "this can release stupidly massive amounts of energy" and there was a caption under the blueprint that said "for killing Reapers." Liara and Hackett looked at each other, said "seems legit" and got to building it. (Or rather - they said "gosh, I hope it's legit, we have no other options.")

Your argument is that people building it will know what it does; this is not always the case, even just within Mass Effect. The Quarians never set out to create the Geth as AI for instance, and the invention of Medigel was a total accident. Very often, what we seek to create and what we actually create are very different things.

Turbotanden wrote.
As for "good writing", I cannot sum things up better than this writer does:
All That Matters is the Ending

I can link articles too. The endings are much better, or at least has much more potential, than their detractors claim/believe.

My argument is not that the people building it knows, it is that they could have known, and hinted at stuff and explained a bit. If the writers wanted to they could have made it fit with the since fiction theme instead of suddenly bringing out what is percieved as ghostly beings of light and space magic.

As for a lot of potential. A new born baby has a lot of potential, it still sucks at everything though (literally) [a joke, but still a good comparison]

Modifié par Turbotanden, 19 avril 2012 - 04:52 .

[PsyrenY]

Turbotanden wrote...

My argument is not that the people building it knows, it is that they could have known, and hinted at stuff and explained a bit. If the writers wanted to they could have made it fit with the since fiction theme instead of suddenly bringing out what is percieved as ghostly beings of light and space magic.

I suppose that is a matter of taste. I think that having it come out of nowhere had plenty of impact myself. It's like "okay, you can kill us, but before you do you should probably know..."

I didn't have a problem with it. I can see how others might, but Javik's warning was really all the foreshadowing I needed.

Turbotanden wrote...
As for a lot of potential. A new born baby has a lot of potential, it still sucks at everything though (literally) [a joke, but still a good comparison]

I agree, the endings sucked. But I'm confident that EC will fill in the blanks I needed filled.