858 réponses à ce sujet

[GreyLycanTrope]

Read it. Unimpressed. Unconvinced.

[Oldbones2]

Congrats OP, I wasted a bunch of time reading that.

To bad he only references scientific theories that support his point.

Or that he blatantly ignores facts from the series lore.

Or that he doesn't even understand the concepts he references.

For instance the the Kardashev Scale. He uses it as an example of why the ending should be subjectively (from Shepard's and our point of view) horrible but objectively good.

Because changing from one state to another is painful and scary.

Except this ignores the fact that going from state 0 to state 1 had no scary transition. And we can apply the same moral ethos today in our current tech level as we do in 2186.

FAIL.

[FFHAuthor]

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.  

I'm sorry, I read the entire article, and I'm familiar with a lot of the conceps argued when it comes to Levels of civilization, threats of nano-technology and even the ever well known Drake Equation, but sadly, the entire article is in service to the ambiguity of the ending, the points that are being argued fall into two catagories;

1. They can be argued by either side for their end because of the tenuous nature of what's being spoken of.
2. Are obscure and unknown by most of the community and people who are experiancing the game.  Sure I can write an execllent story that would be considered a worldwide best seller, but if I write it in Babalyonian Cuneiform, I'm not going to have a great many people understanding it, am I?

The writer also completely ignores one of the central arguments that a portion of the Fanbase is making, the ignoring of consistent themes and philosophies with a one scentence line and referes to obscure concepts as justification.  I can't abide that, it's simply saying 'you're wrong, and here's why I'm right!'

I'm sorry, but it's been said prior, if you need to justify the philisophical reasoning and narrative choherence of your storyline by saying that the last five minutes of the game are ENTIRELY based upon concepts you've most likely never heard of before in your life, then I'm sorry, you've made a terrible story.  And if the other 99.99& of the story was based upon the same themes of the ending, then I must say that it was an incredible coincidence that the game made sense the way so many players, reviewers and critics have said that it has since I haven't read a single review out there of Mass Effect 1 or 2 that mentions Technological Singularity or the Goo Theory, or any of the other theories that the publisher feels that the last five minutes of ME3 were based upon, nor have I seen any statments made by any Bioware Emplyoees or writers that reference any of the concepts that the writer of this article has mentioned.

[The Night Mammoth]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

NorDee65 wrote...

It is quite a leap to suppose that civilisations in the Mass efffect universe are on the verge of destroying themselves or others. Throughout the three games I have neither experienced nor read any hint proving this. On the contrary: the citadel-council has established quite a stable almost galaxy-wide system which stands a good chance of keeping the peace.

Therefore: No, science does not explain ME3-endings....

(the rest of this article tries desperately to explain, why it all makes sense, but fails; plotholes and inconsistencies remain)

I don't think that's much of a leap at all.  There have been numerous times in the three games Shepard thwarted an AI apocalyse.  The Rogue VI on Luna in ME1, and especially Overlord are just two examples, not to mention all the side missions involving crazed AIs.  And it isn't that the civilizations are on the verge of creating those synthetics, its that the Catalyst believes that is an inevitable outcome.

Do we have a single example of a synthetic trying to wipe out all organic life, or expressing this motive? 

I'm guessing no. 

All these examples you cite are completely different. 

[optimistickied]

"Wrong!" "Fail!" "Can't be!" "Impossible!" "No way!"

This fandom is clutching fiercely to its rejection of the endings.

I thought the author had some very challenging points and brought some fresh perspective into the debate. I noticed he didn't laud the entirety of the endings, and echoed a lot of the "anti-" sentiments I've seen here, while providing a counterargument to some of the popular criticism lobbied against the game... with details directly from the gameplay.

I'm never too firm in my beliefs.

[clos]

I read it. I disagree in every possible way. I still hate the ending.

[Shermos]

Bumped to keep this on the first page. People need to read the OP's link. It might change a few minds.

If any mods or admins see this, please consider stickying this thread.

[3DandBeyond]

I don't want to have to have a PHD to play a video game. The ME games set the right tone. They aren't Mario Kart and they aren't some thesis on existentialism. Or they shouldn't be. Some of the initial theories in this stuff just should not be applicable to this game or there are better ways to handle them than to have Shepard commit genocide.

Someone else said it and I'll repeat it, if organics create tech (synthetics) that run amok, destroy the dangerous tech. Also, if the created will always rebel against the creator then why in hell did somebody leave all that reaper tech lying around?

Of course parts of this in depth "review" of the game indicate that some of the brightest minds agree that humans are pre-destined to create tech that will screw everything up. But, what they have written are what is commonly known as cautionary tales and worst case hypotheses. They aren't saying we don't have chances and the ability even to change things. They are warning us that we need to pay attention when we create something.

There's just no way no matter what that the ending fits in with the rest of this game. Your actions only mattered in so much as they helped to increase your war assets and thus increase your EMS. You cannot get around the star kid as it pertains to this story. The introduction of some meaningless would-be frenemy is the height of bad storytelling, even if its existence makes sense in other games, stories, or postulations. He doesn't make sense in this story.

And, even if the ABC endings somehow make sense, they are introduced and play out badly.

The problem is I can have all the science and great integrity and adherence to fact and all, but it won't make for a good story, unless I write a good story.

[Shermos]

3DandBeyond wrote...

I don't want to have to have a PHD to play a video game. The ME games set the right tone. They aren't Mario Kart and they aren't some thesis on existentialism. Or they shouldn't be. Some of the initial theories in this stuff just should not be applicable to this game or there are better ways to handle them than to have Shepard commit genocide.

So a work of Science fiction shouldn't draw from real science? Hmmm

And genocide? Where did that leap of logic come from?

3DandBeyond wrote...
Of course parts of this in depth "review"
of the game indicate that some of the brightest minds agree that humans
are pre-destined to create tech that will screw everything up. But,
what they have written are what is commonly known as cautionary tales
and worst case hypotheses. They aren't saying we don't have chances and
the ability even to change things. They are warning us that we need to
pay attention when we create something.

And ME3 is bringing these cautionary tales into the gaming medium. What's wrong with that?

You really need to play the game through again if you can't see how the ending fits with the rest of the game and even the rest of the series. Repeating the same flawed argument again doesn't make it valid. 

ME3 told a good story. It made some minor errors along the way which people are nittpicking at way too much. Some of the best stories leave the player with questions to ponder. It should encourage them to investigate and read further into ideas such as technological singularity and discuss them with their friends instead of what's been going on in this forum. 

Modifié par Shermos, 21 avril 2012 - 02:19 .

[Zeus_Memnon]

In a game that Bioware claimed was a planned trilogy, there rightfully should be questions after the first game and the second game. That makes for good storytelling. Its the incentive for the reader/player to come back for more. There should be no questions at the end of the triology when all of the outstanding issues should be addressed. Its not complicated. Its a simple thing. A simple thing that they performed so miserably. If I have to speculate about what really happened after 5 years, 3 games, and around 80-100 hours of gameplay then that's bad storytelling and the acrimony they're receiving frankly shoud have been expected. The endings make no sense.

[Storin]

The article is insulting, condescending, and attempts to build an emotionally meaningfull insight into the ending based on obscure and esoteric scientific theories. A basic high school English teacher could tell you that's a terrible thing to base a story on, and that's assuming that's even what Bioware was going for, which I doubt.

Shermos wrote...
And genocide? Where did that leap of logic come from?

Really? You're asking that. Did YOU play the game? The ending forces you to commit genocide (unless you pick the control option, which the game itself basically tells you is crazy and stupid). What part of "all synthetics will die" in the destroy ending did you not understand? And the synthesis ending? Yeah, that's still genocide. Making everyone in the galaxy into a new form of life is still destroying what was there before, not to mention it's morally indefensible.

Modifié par Storin, 21 avril 2012 - 02:42 .

[Riion]

Shermos wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

I don't want to have to have a PHD to play a video game. The ME games set the right tone. They aren't Mario Kart and they aren't some thesis on existentialism. Or they shouldn't be. Some of the initial theories in this stuff just should not be applicable to this game or there are better ways to handle them than to have Shepard commit genocide.

So a work of Science fiction shouldn't draw from real science? Hmmm

And genocide? Where did that leap of logic come from?

3DandBeyond wrote...
Of course parts of this in depth "review"
of the game indicate that some of the brightest minds agree that humans
are pre-destined to create tech that will screw everything up. But,
what they have written are what is commonly known as cautionary tales
and worst case hypotheses. They aren't saying we don't have chances and
the ability even to change things. They are warning us that we need to
pay attention when we create something.

And ME3 is bringing these cautionary tales into the gaming medium. What's wrong with that?

You really need to play the game through again if you can't see how the ending fits with the rest of the game and even the rest of the series. Repeating the same flawed argument again doesn't make it valid. 

ME3 told a good story. It made some minor errors along the way which people are nittpicking at way too much. Some of the best stories leave the player with questions to ponder. It should encourage them to investigate and read further into ideas such as technological singularity and discuss them with their friends instead of what's been going on in this forum. 

For one thing, I don't think 3DandBeyond is saying Sci- Fi shouldn't draw from real science. The point is, you shouldn't need to have an indepth knowledge of, as even the author of the article admits, "esoteric" knowledge to enjoy a game. 

The second point you quoted, I think 3DandBeyond is saying that ME3 is taking these "cautionary tales and worst case hypotheses" to the extreme. They are meant to give a warning, not an ultimatum. The ME3 endings lend itself an air of certainty, whereas many people believe that the only certainty in life is uncertainty. 

Finally, not everything has to "leave the player with questions to ponder". If it does, it should be geared towards that since the beginning. To me, ME had some interesting ideas, but at its core, it's still a game meant to be enjoyed, not a learning tool. I don't play games to "read further into ideas such as technological singularity", there are other mediums for that (which I have already perused). 

Modifié par Riion, 21 avril 2012 - 02:41 .

[zarnk567]

Shermos wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

I don't want to have to have a PHD to play a video game. The ME games set the right tone. They aren't Mario Kart and they aren't some thesis on existentialism. Or they shouldn't be. Some of the initial theories in this stuff just should not be applicable to this game or there are better ways to handle them than to have Shepard commit genocide.

So a work of Science fiction shouldn't draw from real science? Hmmm

And genocide? Where did that leap of logic come from?

3DandBeyond wrote...
Of course parts of this in depth "review"
of the game indicate that some of the brightest minds agree that humans
are pre-destined to create tech that will screw everything up. But,
what they have written are what is commonly known as cautionary tales
and worst case hypotheses. They aren't saying we don't have chances and
the ability even to change things. They are warning us that we need to
pay attention when we create something.

And ME3 is bringing these cautionary tales into the gaming medium. What's wrong with that?

You really need to play the game through again if you can't see how the ending fits with the rest of the game and even the rest of the series. Repeating the same flawed argument again doesn't make it valid. 

ME3 told a good story. It made some minor errors along the way which people are nittpicking at way too much. Some of the best stories leave the player with questions to ponder. It should encourage them to investigate and read further into ideas such as technological singularity and discuss them with their friends instead of what's been going on in this forum. 

(sigh) When you need a 3-5 page paper for people to understand the ending, you as a writer messed up. I'm not even going into how this ending all the sudden breaks Narrative cohesion of the story. All in all when you create an ending that a portion of your fan-base has a problem with. You have take a look at your story again, beacuse somewhere during the story-telling process you as a writer did something wrong. 

Modifié par zarnk567, 21 avril 2012 - 02:48 .

[Peranor]

Shermos wrote...

Bumped to keep this on the first page. People need to read the OP's link. It might change a few minds.

If any mods or admins see this, please consider stickying this thread.

Look, just a friendly advice. If you really like the ending and you want more people to change their mind then you should keep them away from that article. All it does is to show how truly messed up the ending is. I've read it and now i hate the ending even more 

[ZIPO396]

I already understood the ending. A lot of people who also didn't like it understand the ending. I still don't like the ending after reading his article.

[RADIUMEYEZ]

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.  

Seriously? Okay for one the article is so damn long that I think if I even bothered to try to read it my brain would explode. Aside for that I do not think the common person knows a damn thing about astrobiology I will admit I do not nor do I care about it. So if they're going to make an ending revolving around this sort of thing without anything kind of explanation then they failed big time.

[Ericus]

I think that the interpretation in the article is equally valid to all of the other fan-generated interpretations (including IT). But the fact that any of the theories require short essays or 20min youtube vidoes to explain just proves that there is no definitive 'right' answer. Hence the valid complaint from many fans that the ending lacked narrative coherence. Hopefully the Extended Cut DLC will solve that problem, but if not, I'm happy with my Head Cannon.

[Nobrandminda]

Shermos wrote...
And ME3 is bringing these cautionary tales into the gaming medium. What's wrong with that?

You really need to play the game through again if you can't see how the ending fits with the rest of the game and even the rest of the series. Repeating the same flawed argument again doesn't make it valid. 

What's wrong with that is that Mass Effect 3 really didn't "bring these cautionary tales into the gaming medium" until the last 10 minutes, and that is not the time to be introducing such a nebulous concept.

And no, it doesn't fit with the rest of the narrative, it just doesn't.  The main storyline seems to go out of its way to say that organics and synthetics can work together with the introduction of EDI and the peaceful resolution of the war on Rannoch.  Even if you didn't take that option on Rannoch, it was the objectively the ideal ending.

The one and only time that Mass Effect acts like a "cautionary tale" about the threat of our own technology destroying us is the Project Overlord optional side mission, which, as I've said earlier in this thread, had absolutely no bearing on the main storyline whatsoever.  Even then the threat of a technological singularity was more of a McGuffin than an important aspect of the story.  It didn't change the story at all, it was just thrown in there to add tension to the scene since it couldn't ride the coat tails of the previously established drama of the game.

[RADIUMEYEZ]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

Psile_01 wrote...

Hey bro,

I hear your class 2 species are gonna destroy each other and all class 1 species. So I made some class 3 species to destroy all the class 2 species.

Problem not solved by putting science words in. Please try again.

What?

I believe he was being a smart ass about the article and it was rather funny I think.

[animadpig]

As the author calim in his article, the author is a popular science junkie. If you do not understand what is Arstobiology, you should go to NASA read the Roadmap of Astrobiology at least. Obviously, the author totally misunderstand what is Astrobiology.

Also, for you information, you need read real science articles not popular science article. Popular science is good for introduction not good for reference. Most of scientist write those popular science did not give a very stric definition because the purpose of popular science is try to help people to understand what the scientist are doing.

[Cplhunter]

Read it, found it to be an interesting take on the whole thing. I still dislike the ending but to clarify that doesn't mean I think anyone who disagrees with me is wrong. More power to you because then you got the fully enjoy it from start to finish. I have my reasons why I didn't enjoy the ending but it was nice to read another point of view and one that wasn't simply screaming at those of us who didn't enjoy the ending. Thank you for that, at least.

[Auralius Carolus]

Riiiiight, this actually makes me dislike the endings even more.

To sum it up, "Steven Hawking says Space Magic makes a good plot device."

[3DandBeyond]

Shermos wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

I don't want to have to have a PHD to play a video game. The ME games set the right tone. They aren't Mario Kart and they aren't some thesis on existentialism. Or they shouldn't be. Some of the initial theories in this stuff just should not be applicable to this game or there are better ways to handle them than to have Shepard commit genocide.

So a work of Science fiction shouldn't draw from real science? Hmmm

And genocide? Where did that leap of logic come from?

3DandBeyond wrote...
Of course parts of this in depth "review"
of the game indicate that some of the brightest minds agree that humans
are pre-destined to create tech that will screw everything up. But,
what they have written are what is commonly known as cautionary tales
and worst case hypotheses. They aren't saying we don't have chances and
the ability even to change things. They are warning us that we need to
pay attention when we create something.

And ME3 is bringing these cautionary tales into the gaming medium. What's wrong with that?

You really need to play the game through again if you can't see how the ending fits with the rest of the game and even the rest of the series. Repeating the same flawed argument again doesn't make it valid. 

ME3 told a good story. It made some minor errors along the way which people are nittpicking at way too much. Some of the best stories leave the player with questions to ponder. It should encourage them to investigate and read further into ideas such as technological singularity and discuss them with their friends instead of what's been going on in this forum. 

I thank people that explained and understood what I was saying,  Genocide is implicit in your choice at the end.  You will kill billions of beings or you will amorally decide their fate by destroying what makes them uniquely them by choosing synergy.  Mass Relay destruction alone will kill billions outright (if the Arrival DLC type destruction ensues) or will cause the deaths of billions in a drawn out process due to all fleets being stranded.

I don't mind any game or piece of fiction using real science in portraying anything.  i enjoy it.  I find it indefensible to take the worst case scenario to the extreme and end a video game series with that.  Especially, when it is not a certainty, when the free will and adaptability of people is not factored into that scenario at all.

Nobody is nitpicking the story that has been told along the way.  There's a lot that could be nitpicked about, but people by and large ignored the little bitty failings as the tale played itself out until they hit the ending or the ending hit them.  Even then, people have made the point ad nauseum that Mass Effect is a great ride for 2.9 games.  The ending .1 part ruins the rest of the greatness that ME is.  Not the other way around.

The best stories that give you something to ponder actually give you something sensible to ponder.  But eventually they do wrap things up as well.  ME was never about one game or one end-it was always about your choices and the path they made.

I need no encouragement to read up on things further.  I do that.  I don't need a video game to tell me to do it. 
I submit it is you that needs to play these games again and see just how the endings don't fit into the rest of the story.  The endings don't even fit in with ME3 alone.

The two best explanations for why we hate the ending.
Understated Nerd Rage video


And California Literary Review
http://calitreview.com/24673

These both put things into perspective and describe most all of the issues that exist within the ending.

Lack of story cohesiveness
Lack of character authenticity
Introduction of random, new "antagonist"
Abandonment of real antagonist
Failure to deliver on the promise of actions and choices determining outcome.
And I'm not even talking about a promise CH might have made-I mean the
promise implicit in playing 3 games. It led you to believe your choices
mattered. They don't.
Introduction of the ABC ending choices (something we were told would not happen). Oops, sorry I mean Red,
White, and Blue choices.
Total suspension of reality within the confines of the ME universe-given over completely to Space Magic.
Introduction of flawed "logic" imparted by some supposedly super smart computer kid
VI-logic that had already been disproved in the game.
Lack of any emotional decompression/epilogue/denouement/catharsis.
Ruination of any and all replay value of all 3 games.
And much, much more...

Very sorry this post is so loooooonnng....

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 21 avril 2012 - 04:21 .

[kavox]

This article hurts my fragile little mind. I play Mass Effect for compelling storylines and impressively diverse plots, not for scientific ideas from Kardashev and Hawkings. If the writers were trying to ensure that the Reapers remain unkowable to their fans, then they succeeded. I have no idea what the Reapers intentions are after listening to Soveriegn and then the Catalyst. The thing that i always took away from the Reapers is that they were truly beyond our scope of understading, yet the Catalyst explains their existence in less than 5 minutes. Each Reaper is a nation unto themselves, independent and free from all weakness, yet they answer to a transluscent version of Anakin-Boy-Skywalker.

There are several points I can argue, but I'm stressed for time. If the Catalyst's intention was to prevent organics from creating rogue AI, they already failed and his solution is already invalid 300 years before the game takes place(Geth-Quarian Conflict). On top of this, the Reapers fuel further conflict between the Geth and organics, the whole premise of the first game revolves around this. That would mean that the Catalyst, who created the Reapers in order to save organics from snthetics, was using his Reapers to upgrade synthetics to kill organics........FACEPALM.  

[3DandBeyond]

@kavox,
Right to the point. The fact is that the ending, if you do try and put it into context with the rest of the game just makes it all into some Rubik's Cube and makes the head hurt. I can come up with any number of ridiculous theories (and I have done so) as to what it all means. And they are just that ridiculous.

Along with your point, somebody left all that reaper tech laying around for people to use, so organics used them and sealed their fate. It's a circle within a circle or the mirror in a mirror in a mirror, and so on.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 21 avril 2012 - 04:54 .