209 réponses à ce sujet

[Gogzilla]

That effectively is just space magic.

[LKx]

DangerousPuddy wrote...

I think this safely illustrates the discrepancy between dev and fans, which is pretty much non-existant.

ahahaha! Hilarious!

[Kunari801]

LKx wrote...

DangerousPuddy wrote...

I think this safely illustrates the discrepancy between dev and fans, which is pretty much non-existant.

ahahaha! Hilarious!

(face palm)   

[LKx]

davishepard wrote...

The theme always was organics vs. machines. In his first mission that opens the first game, Shepard sees Sovereign, and in the game he learns about this machines race that want to wipe all galactic life. Geths are a plus.
You will only fail to see this if you are too arrogant and think that you know more about the game than its creators, what happens to be the case of many people here on BSN.

You sort of agreed that the main theme was always to destroy the reapers, not the synthetics in general.

Modifié par LKx, 26 avril 2012 - 10:28 .

[Allaiya]

sp0ck 06 wrote...


They are not people.  They are sentient beings, which is similar but not quite the same thing...

I think that is based on your own definition of 'people'/person though. Just because someone may question their self, experiences, emotions etc, does not mean they are not a person by the true definition of the word. EIther that or i don't think the term people/person is the right word to use when you are comparing sentient AIs with organics.

Modifié par mrfinke, 27 avril 2012 - 01:27 .

[Hudathan]

lordofdogtown19 wrote...

Someone needs to tell Gamble that Shepard (at least mine) achieved peace with synthetics and organics already

Because we all know from our own history that ending one war leads to eternal peace on Earth.

[Erield]

Madecologist wrote...

I think the problem is Bioware fails at writing 101. There is a difference between theme and central conflict.

A central conflict can change, usually taking up on of the other themes as a source. However when you do this sort of twist you need a proper build up. You don't just go tada! new Central Conflict.

ME had several themes, usually a theme is expressed in the most basic form. So the organic vrsus synthetic is the theme of us versus the machine (which a variant of us versus them). Other themes (which it seems the fans felt were more dominant) were self-determination, survival, cooperation, and even diversity over uniformity which ME3 brings up a lot with Javik: more so then he does with organic vesus synthetic.

Self determination is the theme that most fans thought were the dominant one. Now did Bioware not intend this... I have a hard time to imagine they didn't. The Genephage, the Collectors, and almost every single Loyalty mission in ME2: Jacob, Samara, Miranda, and especially Legion's. Soveriegn's gloat is literally more about us only existing for their needs. Again self-determination and survival.

It should be noted the theme of survival is closely tied to self-determination. Reapers offer us a form of survival (as a consciencenous inside Reaper form) but it is still a rejected form of surivial. Because of self-determination.

However none of these are the central conflict, the central conflict is the Reapers and their minions. Though the Reapers represent the machine of the us versus machine theme, they also represent the denial of self-determination, uniformity, and extinction (the oppisite of survival).

The problem is self-determination is more present in all the side plotlines and still very present in the main. What ME3 does is tried to subvert this and make us versus machine (organic versus synthetics) the main theme, and even surplant the central conflict of stopping the Reapers with fixing the metaphysical problem of that problem.

It is not about about surviving or keeping our right of self anymore, or stopping the Reapers. Suddenly we are asked to solve a moral issue. Unlike DX:HR, the moral issues was not the biggest problem in the series (oddly enough). In DX:HR, the theme of augments versus purity was shoved down our throats at every breathing second. "I never asked for this."

So we need to ask the question, was the subversion and shift in central conflict properly exposed. The answer is no. ME1 the theme of organics versus synthesis was played straight. In ME2 it was subverted, but the subversion was not random... self determination was the reason why it was subverted. The Geth's desire to evolve without the Great Machines, EDI being unshakled and more loyal to the crew than to Cerberus. You even realise ME1 had this too. The crazed gambling AI just wanted to live and escape. It is kill bomb was a hostage tactic really.

ME3 then questions it from both direction... and depending on how you play you can pick a side over the other or even reject the conflict from the theme and say that there needs to be no us versus them. We can work together (cooperation) and we decide this for ourselves (self-determination).

However when we hit the ending all of this is tossed aside and we are forced to accept that the conflict is true (which it may be) and that we must solve it. Dismissing almost all we done, we can't even debate the points. We debate with Saren and with TIM, but we can't debate it with the Starchild.

The three choices don't do the series justice. The 'utopian' solution is body violation on all life without their consent, and from what I read some Bioware employees say... seems to be also a mental violation (because apparently all will be fine afterwards... that can only happen if you also change people's way of thinking). Oddly enough this was Saren's dream... one that we also opposed.

Control is oppression, you become the new controller and probably impose your solution with the Reapers becoming your tool. There goes self-determination of the antagonist... what irony really. Also what we have been opposing TIM with in all of ME3 and at the end of ME2 if you choose destroy the base.

These two choices... basically are what the support antagonists (the Reapers are the main antagonist depite the nonesense that Cerberus is more prevelant in ME3) of the games wanted. It effectively aside from the issues they pose themselves, suddenly invalidates everything we have done. It basically is saying... we were wrong. But for what?

There is only once choice that rejects this, that is destroy. However destroy will also destroy all synthetics. So to reject this we must sacrifice the very things that makes us reject it. Destroy only makes sense if you reject it and don't care about them. They were just tools. But what if you do care about them? How can we reject the premise given to us without sacrificing them?

We can't, That is why the ending choices are so... disguisting. Literally what misses is the 4th option, the option if you did everything 'right'. Developed EDI, made the Geth and Quarians make peace. During certain key dialogues expressed cooperation between organics and synthetics that will have the choice to just destroy the Reapers. Where we reject what the Reapers and the Catalyst impose on us but without sacrificing individuality (Synthesis) or assuming control of the very force that we have been trying to stop (Control).

Sorry Bioware, your ending and twist is not as clever as you think it is. Trust me... no one in history will ever consider this clever. If anything it will become an example of what not to do. You made the mistake to assume your fans don't know what good literature is.

Long post, but well worth a read.  Excellent explanation of why fans feel that Bioware betrayed the themes at the 11th hour, and why the endings are terrible

[Madecologist]

Wow... I did not expect anyone to read my wall of text... I am glad a few did. That was just a stream of thought really. No edits or proof reading (and it shows). I went back and did a few edits to clean up the English up a bit.

It really does seem Bioware thinks Synthesis is the 'best' ending. That it solves the conflict and thus the best solution. However they say it with complete disregard of all ethical and moral consideration of what the ending implies. That thought... is rather scary if they don't.

Also Synthesis doesn't even try to find a working compromise between Organics and Synthetics, it merely forces a new Paradigm on all, without their consent. Both Organics and Synthetics are forced into this new Paradigm. How can anyone think that imposing a new Paradigm on all without consent is a valid way to break a cycle?

What is next? Let us stop all forms of war. I will use a device that will remove all aggression out of everyone. What makes Synthesis so morally disguisting is that it imposes this solution on everyone. Again if this is missed by Bioware...

[zarnk567]

If Bioware wants to think the ending is amazing fine. But the truth is the whole ending just breaks the Narrative cohesion of the story like a twig, and also manages to break a few fans suspension dis-belief in the universe as well. I can over look bad endings but bad writing? Nope I can't, it just causes me pain to think about the literary abomination that is the ME3 ending.

I hope the EC can fix it.... but I doubt it, it's pretty hard to "clarify" bad writing.

Modifié par zarnk567, 27 avril 2012 - 10:34 .

[wesr]

Them thinking it is an amazing ending might work for them but I see a lot of fans running for the hills.