209 réponses à ce sujet

[lx_theo]

Stygian1 wrote...

Gamble has no clue what he's talking about.

Sorry, someone had to say it. Not an insult, but he blatantly missed the main themes of the series.

Damn those people and their opinions. How dare they think differently?

Modifié par lx_theo, 26 avril 2012 - 04:00 .

[Superstarsage]

Sentience, it would have been so much better if the writers had contemplated this. It was one of the main points of Star trek, it was brought up quite a bit and is VERY flipping important.

Sentient Life. What makes life? Well the wikipedia term covers biological functions. But, let's just say, that's not what we're going for here.

Sentience http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience http://www.thefreedi...ry.com/sentient

This singular term is what defines life (in a matter of speaking). The concept of "does this unit have a soul?" and "self-determination" would be a form of sentience, perceiving and thinking, feeling and reacting. These would be terms of sentience. Those things are alive, those units are alive.

Going strictly biological as the definition of "life" which is what this statement seems to have gone is silly. So yeah.

Edit: to be honest my understanding of the definition sentient life is low. So do feel free to point out logical errors. Thanks.

Modifié par Superstarsage, 26 avril 2012 - 04:02 .

[Mystiq6]

As it were, I'm not done editing the crap out of the OP. Please read it again. I put a whole lot more junk to try and steer this conversation in a better direction.

[tute]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

You know what's funny? Is that for the next year or so, the devs/mods will continue to act like the endings are magnificient, and that the fans are stupid and don't know what they're talking about. But deep down they'll always know that the fans know WAY more about the games and it's lore than they do. Deep down they know the endings are terrible and most people hate them. I would say within a year or so, one of the devs/writers will come forward and say,

"Yea, we/they screwed up."

It'll take awhile, and whoever says it probably won't be a Bioware Employee anymore at the time it happens. But it's only a matter of time.

By the time that happens, the fans have probably moved on from The Company and off to better things with other studios. Seriously, if they wanted an "artistic vision", they should've taken some queues from the MAN, Sir Ridley Scott.

[eddieoctane]

lx_theo wrote...

Stygian1 wrote...

Gamble has no clue what he's talking about.

Sorry, someone had to say it. Not an insult, but he blatantly missed the main themes of the series.

Damn those people and their opinions. How dare they think differently?

It's not an opinion. Unless the green magic wave removes most, if not all, of the rules that hold atoms together and keep time flowing forward, synthetics and organics, as we understood them before Star-Jar tried to turn Shepard into a genocidal eugenicist, will come into being. Just at a much later date. I hope the Reapers can handle waiting more than 50,000 years in sleep mode wherever they went. It'll likely be more than 100 million years before the conflict arises again, but it will, if you believe the Catalyst. So no, Mike has no clue what the hell he is talking about. Neither did Jessica. At least she seemed to give a crap about what we felt and got that nothing made sense. But everything from both of them has been a total ass-pull.

Akranadas wrote...

I thought the theme was "overcoming the differences to work together?"

Nope. It's all about how robots are inherently evil. The HERETIC Geth weren't working for Sovereign or being controlled by him. They were going to attack the Citadel all along and the ugly bastard just followed them there.

[lillitheris]

There's this thought that's been bouncing around in my head regarding synthesis, and it's basically exactly what Gamble says: the only way to end conflict between synthetic and organic life is to stop making a difference between the two. Of course Synthesis, as presented, does nothing to address that because they just didn't really think about the whole thing. At all.

Anyway, once again I'd really appreciate everyone's help in constructing a set of needs to bridge the gap between the two interpretations, while keeping the ending pretty much intact. The set is almost done, but any input, suggestions, critique, hate, love, or visibility that you can offer is greatly appreciated.

The Meaningful Sacrifice thread's here: http://social.biowar.../index/11289479

[NUM13ER]

I do worry that Gamble's opinion represents what BioWare as a whole believes or at least what those behind the ending were trying to convey. This is troubling as it shows they actually set one choice above the others as the "best" ending instead of leaving that to the individual player to decide. That would explain why the Geth are figured into the consequences of destroy. Without them involved, destroy is the only option worth considering. They were actively trying to gear you to what they felt were better scenarios.

That makes me think the extended cut will further try to drive this point home. 

Modifié par NUM13ER, 26 avril 2012 - 04:19 .

[chemiclord]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

You know what's funny? Is that for the next year or so, the devs/mods will continue to act like the endings are magnificient, and that the fans are stupid and don't know what they're talking about. But deep down they'll always know that the fans know WAY more about the games and it's lore than they do.

And now we're getting silly.

You can't know more about the games and the lore than the people who made said games and the lore.  Stop pretending you do.  You might not LIKE what they did with said games and lore, but it is literally impossible for you to be more knowledged than them... if for no reason than they have the power to MAKE their lore right and your understanding of it wrong.

[lx_theo]

eddieoctane wrote...

lx_theo wrote...

Stygian1 wrote...

Gamble has no clue what he's talking about.

Sorry, someone had to say it. Not an insult, but he blatantly missed the main themes of the series.

Damn those people and their opinions. How dare they think differently?

It's not an opinion. Unless the green magic wave removes most, if not all, of the rules that hold atoms together and keep time flowing forward, synthetics and organics, as we understood them before Star-Jar tried to turn Shepard into a genocidal eugenicist, will come into being. Just at a much later date. I hope the Reapers can handle waiting more than 50,000 years in sleep mode wherever they went. It'll likely be more than 100 million years before the conflict arises again, but it will, if you believe the Catalyst. So no, Mike has no clue what the hell he is talking about. Neither did Jessica. At least she seemed to give a crap about what we felt and got that nothing made sense. But everything from both of them has been a total ass-pull.

Hell yes its an opinion.

If it wasn't an opinion, you wouldn't even get a say in what it means for your own interpretation. Whatever is put right there by Bioware would be absolute fact. Mass Effect 3 would be your end all, be all on the subject.

So yeah, damn those people who think differently! 

Modifié par lx_theo, 26 avril 2012 - 04:16 .

[eddieoctane]

tute wrote...
Seriously, if they wanted an "artistic vision", they should've taken some queues from the MAN, Sir Ridley Scott.

Screw Ridley Scott. They should have gotten Neil Degrasse Tyson as a technical consultant to get rid of the crap that leaves sci-fi and goes to pure D&D fantasy. HE is the MAN. Ridley was ok, but honestly, the rape metaphors throughout the entirety of the Alien franchise were rather off-putting.

[Rabid Rooster]

Stygian1 wrote...

Gamble has no clue what he's talking about.

Sorry, someone had to say it. Not an insult, but he blatantly missed the main themes of the series.

I agree with you, he is due his opinion though even if he is in a minority.

[ashwind]

And that is Gamble's opinion. I am not sure that is an official Bioware opinion because... companies cant play games... because it is an entity maybe...

And do you mean that those who share Gamble's opinion are not Fans?

Gamble = Bioware = "wrong" opinion, clueless
Fans = Everyone who is against his opinion, have "right" opinion.

LOL - I dunno if this is arrogance or pure stupidity

[Mathias]

chemiclord wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

You know what's funny? Is that for the next year or so, the devs/mods will continue to act like the endings are magnificient, and that the fans are stupid and don't know what they're talking about. But deep down they'll always know that the fans know WAY more about the games and it's lore than they do.

And now we're getting silly.

You can't know more about the games and the lore than the people who made said games and the lore.  Stop pretending you do.  You might not LIKE what they did with said games and lore, but it is literally impossible for you to be more knowledged than them... if for no reason than they have the power to MAKE their lore right and your understanding of it wrong.

We obviously do, given the amount of inconsistencies and plot holes in this game. They can't just make a mistake and then when called out on it, change the lore of the game so that they're no longer wrong. Sorry but that doesn't make them more knowledgable.

[Stygian1]

lx_theo wrote...

Hell yes its an opinion.

If it wasn't an opinion, you wouldn't even get a say in what it means for your own interpretation. Whatever is put right there by Bioware would be absolute fact. Mass Effect 3 would be your end all, be all on the subject.

So yeah, damn those people who think differently! 

You clearly missed my point. 

Themes of stories (especially Sci-fi) are quite cut and dry. Secondly, it's one of the basic rules of storytelling to keep the overarching themes of a story in contstant perpetuality throughout the writing. The more discrepencies there are towards the overall point, the more watered down the overall message. 

Mass Effect has been about triumph through adversity and strength through differences. Like it or not, this is what has been presented to us through the entire series up to the ending. The last five minutes seemingly disregarded all themes preceding it, and in everyway destroyed all overarching themes of the story. That's simply bad story telling.

My point was Gamble obviously either decided to ignore the themes of the story he had already presented, or actually had no idea what he was presenting throughout three games. Not that he had a different opinion than me, but a different opinion from what he had been presenting for 90+ hours of story. 

[Mystiq6]

ashwind wrote...

And that is Gamble's opinion. I am not sure that is an official Bioware opinion because... companies cant play games... because it is an entity maybe...

And do you mean that those who share Gamble's opinion are not Fans?

Gamble = Bioware = "wrong" opinion, clueless
Fans = Everyone who is against his opinion, have "right" opinion.

LOL - I dunno if this is arrogance or pure stupidity

I would just like to point out that I'm using Gamble's comments as a segue into my argument against "synthetic vs organic."

[GuilleCuba]

Fan: Synthesis is even worse than control... What if some people would rather choose death than be a half-machine?
Gamble: But the idea is there is no concept of machine or organic anymore. There is only life.

So, all machines are going to be alive??? a car is going to be alive, a washing machine is going to be alive, a PC is going to be alive, a freaking toaster is going to be alive???? Well at least that explains many kids cartoons. 

[Allaiya]

Wow, how long has it been since he's played ME1 & ME2??

Reapers are technically synthetic/ organic hybrids and the whole synthesis idea was the goal of Saren the VILLAIN of ME1 (why in ME3 would this suddenly be considered the good option). In ME2 they showed that the non-heretic geth wanted to self-determine their future but in ME3 this is reversed which I thought was odd (guess this should have been a red flag). Though even in ME3 we still see how synthetics/organics can get along!

I never saw the main theme as synthetic vs organic at all. I saw it as one of many subplots which was wrapped up nicely in the Rannoch mission. As others have pointed out, to me the main theme was unity with diversity, self-determination, and fighting the impossible while never giving up hope.

Did someone decide to go the organic/synthetic route for the main theme and not memo in the other writers? The whole series now feels extremely disjointed imo.

Modifié par mrfinke, 26 avril 2012 - 04:49 .

[KillerHappyFace]

Agreed, OP, and great post.

IMO, Organic v Synthetic is a large theme in MEs 2 & 3, its just presented way differently than the ending. Its more about coexistance than it is about inevtiable conflict -- this is why the ending felt so jarring. Literally every single AI met during the course of the second two games was generally amicable. We're shown that conflict could be resolved peacefully, yet in the end were told (not shown) that peace is impossible.

If the ending was at the end of ME1, it would have been (slightly) more agreeable. There are no peaceful AIs during that game to contradict the starbrat's claims.

Modifié par KillerHappyFace, 26 avril 2012 - 04:34 .

[goose2989]

FBI-Azzurri wrote...

One of the major themes of Mass Effect was the galaxy being able to exist as one through Galactic Diversity, each race being unique and different and bringing different ideas and assets to the table. Too bad this theme goes down the toilet if you pick the green ending...Word of advice...Pick red

Synthetics vs organics was in the game, but not what I viewed as a major theme. If this were the case, Bioware should never have made the option of creating peace between the Geth and Quarians. It should have been the Quarians every time. By letting players choose peace, or worse, the Geth, it essentially creates the "wrong" choice, something that Mass Effect has never given. 

[MuckrakerElder]

So Mass Effect all along was just Battlestar Galactica: The interactive version?

WTF!?

[Richard 060]

"Speculation from everyone ...except that. And that, too - surely it's all perfectly obvious!"

[Reth Shepherd]

This is precisely why I don't plan on downloading the EC until I've had a chance to see the rough outline. If all it does is give me 20 extra minutes of Trollface.jpg-Kid expounding on why Synthesis is so great, then I'll be quite happy to stick with Marauder Shields.

[Mystiq6]

Reth Shepherd wrote...

This is precisely why I don't plan on downloading the EC until I've had a chance to see the rough outline. If all it does is give me 20 extra minutes of Trollface.jpg-Kid expounding on why Synthesis is so great, then I'll be quite happy to stick with Marauder Shields.

I would at least give the Extended Cut a chance. BioWare has done great things with this series.

[lx_theo]

Stygian1 wrote...

lx_theo wrote...

Hell yes its an opinion.

If it wasn't an opinion, you wouldn't even get a say in what it means for your own interpretation. Whatever is put right there by Bioware would be absolute fact. Mass Effect 3 would be your end all, be all on the subject.

So yeah, damn those people who think differently! 

You clearly missed my point. 

Themes of stories (especially Sci-fi) are quite cut and dry. Secondly, it's one of the basic rules of storytelling to keep the overarching themes of a story in contstant perpetuality throughout the writing. The more discrepencies there are towards the overall point, the more watered down the overall message. 

Mass Effect has been about triumph through adversity and strength through differences. Like it or not, this is what has been presented to us through the entire series up to the ending. The last five minutes seemingly disregarded all themes preceding it, and in everyway destroyed all overarching themes of the story. That's simply bad story telling.

My point was Gamble obviously either decided to ignore the themes of the story he had already presented, or actually had no idea what he was presenting throughout three games. Not that he had a different opinion than me, but a different opinion from what he had been presenting for 90+ hours of story. 

I suspect you're missing the point. The themes are still how you see them. You obviously got the impression that those two were the big important themes. I personally didn't. I agree on the beating the odds one, but the Strength through diversity always felt more of a side note to the organic adn synthetic struggle.

As for how they worked in the ending...

Beating the Odds... Check (Death=/=Not Triumphant)

Organic/Synthetic Struggle... Check (This is a theme, even if you choose to to label it as minor, or ignore it entirely)

Strength through diversity... I'm going to say Check.

Why? Synthesis is interesting, since it has severeal ways you can approach it theme wise. Personally, I agree with Gamble on destroy not being the best ending. I personally like Synthesis the best.

How I see it is that strength through diversity has been shown in the games by those of diversity coming together under one banner.

Aliens on the Normandy in ME1. Specialists of all background, skills, and species in ME2. Bringing together as many species and types of people as you can to fight the Reapers in ME3. Synthesis does this, in that it creates all life to simply be... life. The obvious implied followthrough of synthesis is that it does not take away each individual species' and individuals' uniqueness. It makes it so that synthetics and organics are brought under one banner of life rather than the categories that set them against each other before.

So I think it fits thematically. So damn those opinions! Good day to you.

[lynch108]

Akranadas wrote...

I thought the theme was "overcoming the differences to work together?"

I thought the theme was "kicking reaper a**, hooking up with my girl, drinking beers with my bros (in that order)"  Maybe I'm to simple-minded.