Interesting article but honestly this is grasping at straws worse than Indoctrination Theory. Far worse IMO.
I challenge those who hate the ending to read this
Débuté par
sp0ck 06
, avril 19 2012 04:04
Retour en haut
#227
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 06:16
Ytook
-
- Members
- 319 messages
The ending is fundamentally flawed, it is bad writing and it is truly abismal story telling, art has no structure but stories do, the ending breaks the fundamentals of story telling without a premise which allows such a thing to happen, the ending is inherently bad, saying you like it is merely saying you are able to over look the problems of the ending, not that those problems don't exist.
#228
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 06:16
bigbrowncows
-
- Members
- 183 messages
I actually really enjoyed reading this. It doesnt help with my issues regarding the ending (mainly Normandy running away/squadmates etc) but it helps to rationalise the decisions at the end.
Thanks op.
Thanks op.
#229
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 06:18
Lyrebon
-
- Members
- 482 messages
tl;dr: Ending was bad. Rantrantrant. Unicorns.
Reading that article just makes what we're already saying is twoddle about the ending more concise.
Why should alien life have to be synthetic if we ever discovered it? There is no concrete evidence or certainty that AI will dominate space-faring tech nor that it will superceed organic life. At most what we could expect is a hybrid juxtaposition of synthetic and organic life, like the quarians. Aside from that what's to say AI will be hostile to organics? Didn't the geth already prove quite the opposite.
Yes, the Reapers could have been "galactic police," nobody disputed that on this forum. Infact it was one of the reasons why the ending is so absurdly stupid. Instead of warning advanced civilisations of the danger of AI, enforcing and guiding their hand, they come around every 50,000 to commit genocide. Wow, f****** wow! Artistic integrity indeed.
And I'm sorry but:
It says it in the goddamn dialogue: "Or do you think you can control us." The Catalyst actually indicates that Shepard will be able to take control of all the Reapers and the Catalyst - we never said "synthetics."
Also, from one absurdist to the rest of the community: why is it imperative organic life be preserved? It is impossible all organic life persists for eternity in one galaxy. At some point - thousands, millions, billions of years - organic life may become extinct. But why should we care? At that point maybe organics have ascended into something better, something stronger, something... synthetic. What's to say becoming synthetic is abhorrently wrong? The Reapers obviously found that transcendence rather welcome. Then also why would a synthetic race like the Reapers, who clearly detest organic life, be protecting that which they revile?
If Bioware wanted us to question the morality of the Reapers indictment, why haven't they given us that insight? Why hasn't Shepard been able to explore the possiblity of transcendance before? The goal of each game was to kill the Reapers. Introducing new themes in the last minute of the game is worse than introducing a new character. I would be open to this idea of synthesis if it had more exposition in the game. But it didn't and the ending felt flat because of it.
Whenever Shepard questioned a Reaper on their goals they always replied with, "you cannot comprehend." Sure, OK, help us understand. "No." Of course it's something we can comprehend, we're right here discussing it now aren't we? It just seemed lazy to me that Bioware had something they could really ride alongside which they never developed into anything meaningful. All we got to understand is that the Reapers are a threat and we need to stop them. In my mind there was no other option.
For that ending to work there needed to be a moment where a Reaper explained why, for Shepard to feel doubt and begin questioning the implications of destroying the Reapers. But as it stands, the only goal in Shepard's head and any sane person in her shoes is to destroy the monsters that are coming to kill us with no explanation other than, "because." Leading you to be as effectively persuading as
this guy.
Using one person to generalise an entire fanbase is crude and effectively insulting. I agree, there was closure throughout ME3 but...
Still doesn't detract from the fact that the actual ending was rushed, sloppy, poorly executed, terribly written, and just downright disappointing. If Bioware were trying to get across the message of astrobiology it wasn't clear enough. Infact, nothing was clear. All we saw was a burst of three different coloured lights and we're never imposed the consequences of our actions. Everything hangs in an ambiguous slushy and we're getting brain-freeze from drinking too fast (a polite way of stating how bad my head hurt trying to rationalise it).
I can accept the synthesis ending from the article, but how does making everyone synthetic-organic hybrids stop the Reapers? Harbinger is a sadist with a god complex; making him partially organic against his own volition will just fuel his rage to more destruction.
sp0ck 06 wrote...
LucasShark wrote...
This ending is worthless, period. It violates the very themes and design choices of ME1 and 2, end of story.
Reading that article might change your mind about that.
Reading that article just makes what we're already saying is twoddle about the ending more concise.
Why should alien life have to be synthetic if we ever discovered it? There is no concrete evidence or certainty that AI will dominate space-faring tech nor that it will superceed organic life. At most what we could expect is a hybrid juxtaposition of synthetic and organic life, like the quarians. Aside from that what's to say AI will be hostile to organics? Didn't the geth already prove quite the opposite.
Yes, the Reapers could have been "galactic police," nobody disputed that on this forum. Infact it was one of the reasons why the ending is so absurdly stupid. Instead of warning advanced civilisations of the danger of AI, enforcing and guiding their hand, they come around every 50,000 to commit genocide. Wow, f****** wow! Artistic integrity indeed.
And I'm sorry but:
"This is not true. The Catalyst always controlled the reapers, and never required Shepard or the Crucible’s intervention to do so. EDI would have easily been commandeered by the Catalyst to sabotage Shepard’s mission. There is also no mention anywhere in the game that the paragon ending would result in control over all synthetics; this is a rumor that grew its own legs within the community."
It says it in the goddamn dialogue: "Or do you think you can control us." The Catalyst actually indicates that Shepard will be able to take control of all the Reapers and the Catalyst - we never said "synthetics."
Also, from one absurdist to the rest of the community: why is it imperative organic life be preserved? It is impossible all organic life persists for eternity in one galaxy. At some point - thousands, millions, billions of years - organic life may become extinct. But why should we care? At that point maybe organics have ascended into something better, something stronger, something... synthetic. What's to say becoming synthetic is abhorrently wrong? The Reapers obviously found that transcendence rather welcome. Then also why would a synthetic race like the Reapers, who clearly detest organic life, be protecting that which they revile?
If Bioware wanted us to question the morality of the Reapers indictment, why haven't they given us that insight? Why hasn't Shepard been able to explore the possiblity of transcendance before? The goal of each game was to kill the Reapers. Introducing new themes in the last minute of the game is worse than introducing a new character. I would be open to this idea of synthesis if it had more exposition in the game. But it didn't and the ending felt flat because of it.
Whenever Shepard questioned a Reaper on their goals they always replied with, "you cannot comprehend." Sure, OK, help us understand. "No." Of course it's something we can comprehend, we're right here discussing it now aren't we? It just seemed lazy to me that Bioware had something they could really ride alongside which they never developed into anything meaningful. All we got to understand is that the Reapers are a threat and we need to stop them. In my mind there was no other option.
For that ending to work there needed to be a moment where a Reaper explained why, for Shepard to feel doubt and begin questioning the implications of destroying the Reapers. But as it stands, the only goal in Shepard's head and any sane person in her shoes is to destroy the monsters that are coming to kill us with no explanation other than, "because." Leading you to be as effectively persuading as
this guy.
"There’s the problem right there: he’d played the whole game just to rack up points and forgot that all the major issues in the story were resolved during the last game – not at the end."
Using one person to generalise an entire fanbase is crude and effectively insulting. I agree, there was closure throughout ME3 but...
"...Mass Effect 3 is the ending."
Still doesn't detract from the fact that the actual ending was rushed, sloppy, poorly executed, terribly written, and just downright disappointing. If Bioware were trying to get across the message of astrobiology it wasn't clear enough. Infact, nothing was clear. All we saw was a burst of three different coloured lights and we're never imposed the consequences of our actions. Everything hangs in an ambiguous slushy and we're getting brain-freeze from drinking too fast (a polite way of stating how bad my head hurt trying to rationalise it).
I can accept the synthesis ending from the article, but how does making everyone synthetic-organic hybrids stop the Reapers? Harbinger is a sadist with a god complex; making him partially organic against his own volition will just fuel his rage to more destruction.
Modifié par Lyrebon, 19 avril 2012 - 06:19 .
#230
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 06:18
MaldororAzrael
-
- Members
- 37 messages
I actually found the link an interesting read, so thank you OP. However, it did not change my opinion about the ending in slightest - we know that this is not the ending they planned originally, we know it's a result of rushed and sloppy writing and we sure as heck know that if Bioware planned an ending that would require knowledge of astrobiology to comprehend, they wouldn't be trying to attract CoD/GoW crowd - unless they are the biggest trolls ever.
In overall, this is nothing but a pro-ender equivalent of indoctrination theory - lots of nit picking and finding smallest, coincidental details to justify wishful thinking.
Even if we pretend for a moment that the reasoning explained in the article was precisely what Walters and Hudson had in mind when writing the ending, the ending would still be poor due to the sheer fact that there was no foreshadowing or explanations whatsoever.
In overall, this is nothing but a pro-ender equivalent of indoctrination theory - lots of nit picking and finding smallest, coincidental details to justify wishful thinking.
Even if we pretend for a moment that the reasoning explained in the article was precisely what Walters and Hudson had in mind when writing the ending, the ending would still be poor due to the sheer fact that there was no foreshadowing or explanations whatsoever.
#231
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 06:22
Mylia Stenetch
-
- Members
- 726 messages
LucasShark wrote...
That was sort of the point of the example: there's nothing wrong with people "liking" poor quality products, but they have to simaltainously admit that it is their opinion and the product is still of poor quality. People can like the aste of McDonalds, but it is still objectively bad for you.
What I was taking issue with in the OP's posts, and in AAA gaming in general is this: claiming "I like it, therefore it is objectively good", which is a logical falicy.
I did not see him say in the post stating it is objectivly good. We may see different things. I will leave it at that.
#232
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 06:22
moater boat
-
- Members
- 1 213 messages
Allow me to go into great detail and relate to you why that article sucks.
"The ending was foreshadowed" Uh, no, not at all really. Then he posts a video of the Sovereign conversation from ME1 where we are told that the purpose of the Reapers is beyond our comprehension. This is ridiculous because that doesn't foreshadow the ending at all and because the purpose was explained to us by the catalyst in about 20 seconds.
While Hawking, Kaku, and Sagan are considered visionary in OUR time, the idea that the future will actually conform almost exactly with their predictions is silly. For example, the author complains that the Kardashev scale isn't even referenced in any mass effect game. It is absolutely foolish to assume that humans in the 22nd century, who have had contact with dozens of alien races, would still be classifying them using a scale that was created before humanity made contact with ANY aliens.
He then goes on to say that the crucible is a type III technology, created by type I civilizations. For someone so hung up on the Kardashev scale, he seems to have no problem with ignoring it when it suits him.
I love this little gem. "thus why the ending throws out practically everything prior to it. It’s understandable that the emotional effect of Shepard’s epiphany is lost to people who haven’t given any thought to the significance of this transition."
Science boy here obviously is only looking at things from one angle, even if he THINKS it makes sense from a science standpoint, it falls on its face from a STORYTELLING standpoint, which means the ending is still a failure. In spite of this glaring oversight on his part, he can't help but be a little smug with his "you're just not smart enough to grasp it" attitude that too many pro-enders seem to have.
He then goes on to talk about the Drake equation and he mentions the idea behind the Fermi paradox without actually mentioning the paradox itself. Since the Drake equation is far more famous than its counterpart, the Fermi paradox, I can only assume that he is operating with just enough knowledge to make it appear that he knows what is going on. Anyway, two of the biggest answers to the Fermi paradox used in the game are the self destruction of civilization, in this case specifically through the creation of synthetic life, and the zoo hypotheses. Interestingly enough, in the ME universe we have a zoo within a zoo. Spacefaring races observe non-spacefaring races, and unbeknownst to them, the reapers watch the whole thing. But I digress. The author seems to take the position that the ONLY answer to the Fermi paradox is self destruction by out of control AIs. That is simply not the case. To imply that we should have seen it coming is simply absurd.
He mentions grey goo, or Von Neumann machines. But he talks about them like they are an inescapable fate. In reality, they are more of just a crazy "what if" scenario that were created by a mathematician, using mathematical principles, and not at all constrained by reality.
Farther down when he attempts to debunk what he calls "misconceptions and disputes" he makes more absurd statements. He says that the room that the catalyst is in could very well have windows. This could very well be true if the catalyst was in a room! The conversation takes place in the empty space between the citadel and the crucible.
He goes on to explain that controlling the Reapers IS the paragon choice. This is after he spends many many paragraphs explaining that the Reapers are the good guys, even calling them a "galactic police squad". Now I don't know about you, but I hold certain beliefs about what is considered good, evil, and acceptable, for lack of a better word. Slavery of a sentient being is evil in my mind, and I think that a vast majority of good people would agree. Killing an enemy in a war is acceptable. Some people may consider it evil, some may consider it good, but it can be agreed upon by almost all people that killing an enemy in battle is a lesser evil than enslaving a sentient being. Even if there is some minority that may disagree, the thought that they would consider slavery to be morally good is just absurd. However, the author seems to think that enslaving these beings that he praises so highly is a rightious act.
The author also mentions Moore's law and seems to put it in the same "indesputable truth" catagory that he places grey goo and the Kardashev scales. In reality, Moore's law will probably only hold true for a couple more decades before we hit a wall in computer processing power.
My last point (don't worry, I'm almost done) is that the author falls into a trap that I have seen so many people on the forums fall into, and that is the specifics regarding the destruction of the mass relays. The author speculates that the destruction of the mass relays is somehow different than what we saw in Arrival. I'm not going to dispute that because that could very well be true. The fact is that we only have one mass relay destruction to base things on. But here is the crux of the issue. That is all Shepard has as well! As far as Shepard knows, destroying a mass relay means everyone in the system dies. He has no reason to think otherwise, and even if he did suspect that it could be different, the fact that he didn't even consider asking for clarification means that whoever wrote the ending did so without taking into account well established ME lore.
In summary, even if the writers put as much thought into the ending as he believes, this doesn't change the fact that they took the most pessimistic view on the fate of civilizations and based the ending around that, in spite of the fact that HOPE was one of the main, overarching themes of the Mass Effect franchise.
It is bad storytelling, plain and simple, and the fact that there is some degree of scientific credibility behind it doesn't make it better, in fact, it makes it worse, because it means that in spite of the writers doing their homework, the still weren't able to make a decent ending.
Edit: I forgot to mention, Kaku doesn't believe that artificial life will someday supplant humanity. So there is another reason the author didn't know what he was talking about.
"The ending was foreshadowed" Uh, no, not at all really. Then he posts a video of the Sovereign conversation from ME1 where we are told that the purpose of the Reapers is beyond our comprehension. This is ridiculous because that doesn't foreshadow the ending at all and because the purpose was explained to us by the catalyst in about 20 seconds.
While Hawking, Kaku, and Sagan are considered visionary in OUR time, the idea that the future will actually conform almost exactly with their predictions is silly. For example, the author complains that the Kardashev scale isn't even referenced in any mass effect game. It is absolutely foolish to assume that humans in the 22nd century, who have had contact with dozens of alien races, would still be classifying them using a scale that was created before humanity made contact with ANY aliens.
He then goes on to say that the crucible is a type III technology, created by type I civilizations. For someone so hung up on the Kardashev scale, he seems to have no problem with ignoring it when it suits him.
I love this little gem. "thus why the ending throws out practically everything prior to it. It’s understandable that the emotional effect of Shepard’s epiphany is lost to people who haven’t given any thought to the significance of this transition."
Science boy here obviously is only looking at things from one angle, even if he THINKS it makes sense from a science standpoint, it falls on its face from a STORYTELLING standpoint, which means the ending is still a failure. In spite of this glaring oversight on his part, he can't help but be a little smug with his "you're just not smart enough to grasp it" attitude that too many pro-enders seem to have.
He then goes on to talk about the Drake equation and he mentions the idea behind the Fermi paradox without actually mentioning the paradox itself. Since the Drake equation is far more famous than its counterpart, the Fermi paradox, I can only assume that he is operating with just enough knowledge to make it appear that he knows what is going on. Anyway, two of the biggest answers to the Fermi paradox used in the game are the self destruction of civilization, in this case specifically through the creation of synthetic life, and the zoo hypotheses. Interestingly enough, in the ME universe we have a zoo within a zoo. Spacefaring races observe non-spacefaring races, and unbeknownst to them, the reapers watch the whole thing. But I digress. The author seems to take the position that the ONLY answer to the Fermi paradox is self destruction by out of control AIs. That is simply not the case. To imply that we should have seen it coming is simply absurd.
He mentions grey goo, or Von Neumann machines. But he talks about them like they are an inescapable fate. In reality, they are more of just a crazy "what if" scenario that were created by a mathematician, using mathematical principles, and not at all constrained by reality.
Farther down when he attempts to debunk what he calls "misconceptions and disputes" he makes more absurd statements. He says that the room that the catalyst is in could very well have windows. This could very well be true if the catalyst was in a room! The conversation takes place in the empty space between the citadel and the crucible.
He goes on to explain that controlling the Reapers IS the paragon choice. This is after he spends many many paragraphs explaining that the Reapers are the good guys, even calling them a "galactic police squad". Now I don't know about you, but I hold certain beliefs about what is considered good, evil, and acceptable, for lack of a better word. Slavery of a sentient being is evil in my mind, and I think that a vast majority of good people would agree. Killing an enemy in a war is acceptable. Some people may consider it evil, some may consider it good, but it can be agreed upon by almost all people that killing an enemy in battle is a lesser evil than enslaving a sentient being. Even if there is some minority that may disagree, the thought that they would consider slavery to be morally good is just absurd. However, the author seems to think that enslaving these beings that he praises so highly is a rightious act.
The author also mentions Moore's law and seems to put it in the same "indesputable truth" catagory that he places grey goo and the Kardashev scales. In reality, Moore's law will probably only hold true for a couple more decades before we hit a wall in computer processing power.
My last point (don't worry, I'm almost done) is that the author falls into a trap that I have seen so many people on the forums fall into, and that is the specifics regarding the destruction of the mass relays. The author speculates that the destruction of the mass relays is somehow different than what we saw in Arrival. I'm not going to dispute that because that could very well be true. The fact is that we only have one mass relay destruction to base things on. But here is the crux of the issue. That is all Shepard has as well! As far as Shepard knows, destroying a mass relay means everyone in the system dies. He has no reason to think otherwise, and even if he did suspect that it could be different, the fact that he didn't even consider asking for clarification means that whoever wrote the ending did so without taking into account well established ME lore.
In summary, even if the writers put as much thought into the ending as he believes, this doesn't change the fact that they took the most pessimistic view on the fate of civilizations and based the ending around that, in spite of the fact that HOPE was one of the main, overarching themes of the Mass Effect franchise.
It is bad storytelling, plain and simple, and the fact that there is some degree of scientific credibility behind it doesn't make it better, in fact, it makes it worse, because it means that in spite of the writers doing their homework, the still weren't able to make a decent ending.
Edit: I forgot to mention, Kaku doesn't believe that artificial life will someday supplant humanity. So there is another reason the author didn't know what he was talking about.
Modifié par moater boat, 19 avril 2012 - 06:55 .
#233
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 06:23
shadowreflexion
-
- Members
- 634 messages
sp0ck 06 wrote...
If you hated/disliked/didn't understand/were let down by the ending, read this editorial.
http://galacticpillo...ffect-3-ending/
It really might make you look differently at not just the ending but the whole of ME3. If you want to love the conclusion to the series but just can't, please give this a read. It's long but worth it.
What makes so many question the intelligence of those who played the game? What makes it so hard for those same people to understand that this was all about choice? CHOICE not ACCEPTANCE. Those two words are very different. Do you want a happy ending, then make sure you work at it and it isn't going to be easy. Choice. Do you want to find a way to drop a magnetized anvil on the child AI and kill the Reapers yourself? Choice. Let's damn everyone in the galaxy because we're tired. Acceptance. We can make this decision for you. Acceptance.
People get it. It still doesn't negate the more pressing issue here. We were given the choices that were taken away when it really mattered. How hard is that for many outlets to understand. Our outcomes should have been achieved on our terms. So yes, the ending is just terrible and there's nothing that can be added to the point after you get hit with the laser. The company knows they made the mistake. Walters and Hudson know. This has gone far from protecting any "artistic integrity" this is in the waters of protecting "selfish, unabashed, and childish pride."
#234
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 06:26
Linksys17
-
- Members
- 528 messages
Shouldn't the games ending speak for itself you know a story/ending is bad when it needs an article to explain it, there are a lot of inconsistencies that the ending presents. And introducing a character and a contradicting theme in the last 10 minutes of a story is just poor writing for such a dramatic shift in logic and theme you need to give the audience enough time to digest it not just force it down their throats. I'm sorry but the talent that bioware displayed makes this ending even harder to accept
#235
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 06:26
Bill Casey
-
- Members
- 7 609 messages
#236
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 06:29
Lookout1390
-
- Members
- 1 692 messages
Nope
Ending was still complete and utter ****. Completely invalidates the first 2 games in the series.
Ending was still complete and utter ****. Completely invalidates the first 2 games in the series.
#237
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 06:29
mlorenz347
-
- Members
- 10 messages
Please respond to my post:
I would like to start by saying I enjoyed the read and the ideas it sparks. I think the ideas behind these scientific theories may hold some merit. However it doesn't really apply to the story and I will try to explain why I feel this way.
You say that organic civilizations will eventually create AI that will make organics obsolete. This premise is fine and can certainly be argued. But, If you assume this premise per the mass effect story, why would the reapers or any Type ii or iii civilization feel the need to save any organics. You said it yourself they are obsolete. What is their purpose? Why do they need to continue to exist. If the machines are more advanced and can create technology that no organic could ever fathom, why save them? What does it accomplish in the long run? Wouldn't the galaxy have evovled beyond comprehension if the Reapers never prevented synthetic life to wipe out organics.
What is the point of saving organics?
I would like to start by saying I enjoyed the read and the ideas it sparks. I think the ideas behind these scientific theories may hold some merit. However it doesn't really apply to the story and I will try to explain why I feel this way.
You say that organic civilizations will eventually create AI that will make organics obsolete. This premise is fine and can certainly be argued. But, If you assume this premise per the mass effect story, why would the reapers or any Type ii or iii civilization feel the need to save any organics. You said it yourself they are obsolete. What is their purpose? Why do they need to continue to exist. If the machines are more advanced and can create technology that no organic could ever fathom, why save them? What does it accomplish in the long run? Wouldn't the galaxy have evovled beyond comprehension if the Reapers never prevented synthetic life to wipe out organics.
What is the point of saving organics?
#238
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 06:30
OneDrunkMonk
-
- Members
- 605 messages
No seriously, I paid attention to the game. I gave it deep thought. Tried to make sense of it all in the end. Sorry, no long winded reasoning is gonna convince me the 3 choice ending with the "Star Child" is the one that was intended all along in the series. Pretty much all your war asset building in ME3 means little if anything in regards to the actual game ending. I was completely expecting a combination of massive allied fleet + Cerberus-Reaper tech back end (possibly some Geth help here too) sabotage to = victory over the Reapers. That way all that you struggled to accomplish in ME3 added up to something in how the game ends.
#239
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 06:31
sp0ck 06
-
- Members
- 1 318 messages
The Angry One wrote...
I just love this arrogant attitude going around. "The ending isn't bad, you need it explained!".
Yeah, no. We understand the ending, we need nothing explained. We are intelligent people. No, you are not more intelligent for liking this mess. You do not "get" something we don't, and I have to wonder why you insist on thinking that.
Stop. Do ever read anyone's posts? I have REPEATEDLY stated, as did the author also, that the ending is NOT WELL DONE, and that I am NOT trying to prove anything or claim that if you didn't like the ending, you "didn't get it." All I wanted was a civil discussion, which most people here, in this thread, are capable of. You however, repeatedly demonstrate an extreme lack of respect and civility for anyone who's views are not exactly in line with yours. So just shut up, please.
#240
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 06:34
ed87
-
- Members
- 1 177 messages
I guess i cant appreciate the ending unless i read a random article on the internet
#241
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 06:35
Lookout1390
-
- Members
- 1 692 messages
and people call pro-IT people desperate...
#242
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 06:36
balance5050
-
- Members
- 5 245 messages
sp0ck 06 wrote...
The Angry One wrote...
I just love this arrogant attitude going around. "The ending isn't bad, you need it explained!".
Yeah, no. We understand the ending, we need nothing explained. We are intelligent people. No, you are not more intelligent for liking this mess. You do not "get" something we don't, and I have to wonder why you insist on thinking that.
Stop. Do ever read anyone's posts? I have REPEATEDLY stated, as did the author also, that the ending is NOT WELL DONE, and that I am NOT trying to prove anything or claim that if you didn't like the ending, you "didn't get it." All I wanted was a civil discussion, which most people here, in this thread, are capable of. You however, repeatedly demonstrate an extreme lack of respect and civility for anyone who's views are not exactly in line with yours. So just shut up, please.
If you wanted a civil discussion, you shouldn't have "challenged" us to anything. We will just crush it.
#243
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 06:38
sp0ck 06
-
- Members
- 1 318 messages
mlorenz347 wrote...
Please respond to my post:
I would like to start by saying I enjoyed the read and the ideas it sparks. I think the ideas behind these scientific theories may hold some merit. However it doesn't really apply to the story and I will try to explain why I feel this way.
You say that organic civilizations will eventually create AI that will make organics obsolete. This premise is fine and can certainly be argued. But, If you assume this premise per the mass effect story, why would the reapers or any Type ii or iii civilization feel the need to save any organics. You said it yourself they are obsolete. What is their purpose? Why do they need to continue to exist. If the machines are more advanced and can create technology that no organic could ever fathom, why save them? What does it accomplish in the long run? Wouldn't the galaxy have evovled beyond comprehension if the Reapers never prevented synthetic life to wipe out organics.
What is the point of saving organics?
I didn't write the article linked, but my response we be because the Catalyst and the Reapers appear to be dedicated to preserving the cycle and maintaining galactic order in face of what they view as the inevitable chaos of organic evolution. This is pure speculation of course, but I figured that whatever intelligence became the Catalyst must have been created at some point and perhaps hardcoded with a set of principles, the main one being the preservation and harvesting of organic life. As for the Reapers, it is simply their purpose. I don't think the Reapers, for all their vast intelligence, really comprehend the nature of their existence. As Sovereign stated "We have no beginning, we have no end. We simply....are."
#244
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 06:38
WE_Belisarius
-
- Members
- 127 messages
Oh look, another fan theory, but this time it supports the ending.
Well, as the author doubt, that IT and all the other theories are not true, I highly doubt that BioWare intended to use state of the art astrobiology research for their "artistic vision".
Thats one of the main problems of the ending. Nothing is clear, there is too much room to speculate about what the intentions of the writers were.
So, a bunch auf tech 1 civs can build a tech 3 device? That seems very unlikely and in my opinion this is just grasping at straws. One thing, that every fan theory has in common.
About the closure, yes Mass Effect 3 give us a lot of closure about the story arcs, which were build up in the past and I really enjoyed these conclusions. But what about the closure after the ending? What happened to Shepards friends? Will organic civiization build new synthetics after the red explosion and doom every organic live in the universe? Will Shepard maintane her controll over the reapers, or will the cycle start again? After the synthesis ending, why should the new master race not build new, pure synthetics? How long will the peace last, because equality will not resolve in forever lasting peace?
There are no answers for these questions, but they are important for most of us, because we care about the characters.
BioWare failed to explain in the ending, that the destruction of the Mass Relays are not like the one we saw in Arrival. BioWare failed to explain what happened to the fleet we assembled, what happen to the major planets and colonies, which had been cut off from the supply routes.
So I must assume, that most of the people died and some races even extinct and this just stupid, dissappointing and so on.
Well, as the author doubt, that IT and all the other theories are not true, I highly doubt that BioWare intended to use state of the art astrobiology research for their "artistic vision".
Thats one of the main problems of the ending. Nothing is clear, there is too much room to speculate about what the intentions of the writers were.
So, a bunch auf tech 1 civs can build a tech 3 device? That seems very unlikely and in my opinion this is just grasping at straws. One thing, that every fan theory has in common.
About the closure, yes Mass Effect 3 give us a lot of closure about the story arcs, which were build up in the past and I really enjoyed these conclusions. But what about the closure after the ending? What happened to Shepards friends? Will organic civiization build new synthetics after the red explosion and doom every organic live in the universe? Will Shepard maintane her controll over the reapers, or will the cycle start again? After the synthesis ending, why should the new master race not build new, pure synthetics? How long will the peace last, because equality will not resolve in forever lasting peace?
There are no answers for these questions, but they are important for most of us, because we care about the characters.
BioWare failed to explain in the ending, that the destruction of the Mass Relays are not like the one we saw in Arrival. BioWare failed to explain what happened to the fleet we assembled, what happen to the major planets and colonies, which had been cut off from the supply routes.
So I must assume, that most of the people died and some races even extinct and this just stupid, dissappointing and so on.
Modifié par WE_Belisarius, 19 avril 2012 - 06:42 .
#245
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 06:39
Lyrebon
-
- Members
- 482 messages
Mylia Stenetch wrote...
LucasShark wrote...
That was sort of the point of the example: there's nothing wrong with people "liking" poor quality products, but they have to simaltainously admit that it is their opinion and the product is still of poor quality. People can like the aste of McDonalds, but it is still objectively bad for you.
What I was taking issue with in the OP's posts, and in AAA gaming in general is this: claiming "I like it, therefore it is objectively good", which is a logical falicy.
I did not see him say in the post stating it is objectivly good. We may see different things. I will leave it at that.
I felt I was getting that from the article. His treatment of the theories expressed on these forums is, at best, callous and dangerously hypocritical of his own nitpicking to support his own theory as objective. It sounds arrogant; I don't know if he was intending to or not.
#246
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 06:40
The Angry One
-
- Members
- 22 246 messages
sp0ck 06 wrote...
You however, repeatedly demonstrate an extreme lack of respect and civility for anyone who's views are not exactly in line with yours. So just shut up, please.
Are you trying to be ironic?
Don't get upset because I see through you, you've made multiple posts attempting to defend the ending before, and raging when people disagreed with you.
Now you're claiming you want "civil discussion" and this article will "make people feel better". Please.
It's yet more speculation that means absolutely nothing, and has no bearing on the ending.
Modifié par The Angry One, 19 avril 2012 - 06:41 .
#247
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 06:42
sp0ck 06
-
- Members
- 1 318 messages
Lyrebon wrote...
Mylia Stenetch wrote...
LucasShark wrote...
That was sort of the point of the example: there's nothing wrong with people "liking" poor quality products, but they have to simaltainously admit that it is their opinion and the product is still of poor quality. People can like the aste of McDonalds, but it is still objectively bad for you.
What I was taking issue with in the OP's posts, and in AAA gaming in general is this: claiming "I like it, therefore it is objectively good", which is a logical falicy.
I did not see him say in the post stating it is objectivly good. We may see different things. I will leave it at that.
I felt I was getting that from the article. His treatment of the theories expressed on these forums is, at best, callous and dangerously hypocritical of his own nitpicking to support his own theory as objective. It sounds arrogant; I don't know if he was intending to or not.
Just to be clear, I didn't write that article.
#248
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 06:42
Mylia Stenetch
-
- Members
- 726 messages
Lyrebon wrote...
I felt I was getting that from the article. His treatment of the theories expressed on these forums is, at best, callous and dangerously hypocritical of his own nitpicking to support his own theory as objective. It sounds arrogant; I don't know if he was intending to or not.
Okay that is understanable. Expression emotion through a large article without showing massive arrogance is a tricky beast. I felt at the start it was very arrogant trying to talk over the head. As I read deeper into it I felt he was not trying to be arrogant he just needed an editor, to clear up a few things.
#249
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 06:44
Linksys17
-
- Members
- 528 messages
The Angry One wrote...
sp0ck 06 wrote...
You however, repeatedly demonstrate an extreme lack of respect and civility for anyone who's views are not exactly in line with yours. So just shut up, please.
Are you trying to be ironic?
Don't get upset because I see through you, you've made multiple posts attempting to defend the ending before, and raging when people disagreed with you.
Now you're claiming you want "civil discussion" and this article will "make people feel better". Please.
It's yet more speculation that means absolutely nothing, and has no bearing on the ending.
Lol not trying to take sides here but your first line made me spit soda all over my keyboard laughing +1
#250
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 06:44
JELLAQTP
-
- Members
- 174 messages
Let´s say I didn´t understand the ending. Explaining it will not make me like it. It´s the same assumption Bethesda is doing with the clarifing dlc.
In any case it was a nice reading. But when the science is combined with all this mystic ways, we end a science fiction tale with a pseudoscientific mayan prophetic outcome.
In any case it was a nice reading. But when the science is combined with all this mystic ways, we end a science fiction tale with a pseudoscientific mayan prophetic outcome.
