312 réponses à ce sujet

[Manuel La Bor]

bump. This is the best presentation on the endings that I've yet seen.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

I like Destroy as the paragon ending since it ends the reapers permanently. As far as sacrificing EDI goes, EDI assures us that destroying the reapers is worth non-functionality, and she seemed adamant about it. I pretty much renegaded EDI through the playthrough and she that was the conclusion she ended with. I didn't have the Geth at the end.

Control I see as the renegade choice. I find it better than synthesis.

Synthesis I just find troubling in every aspect because it is involuntary.

All the choices are bad, especially if BW meant us to take the Catalyst's words literally, assuming he was being completely honest. The galaxy is a total mess.

[brickheart]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

How does Shepard end up on the ground again? That's my question? And in plot armor? I could have sworn she had dragon blood armor on which had a helmet. *space magic*

Yeah, if the endings are literal, BW screwed the pooch on the series. All indications are that they are literal.

OP doesn't suggest that the endings aren't literal... If you are referring to IDT (Shepard still on Earth), please see below quote and response.

Dendio1 wrote
I dont see how shepard could survive an explosion the scale that we see. I dont see how shepard can be flung across the citadel on to one of the arms, or re enter earths atmosphere.

The only way down is the way he came up, but the beam was a one way trip. As unrealistic as waking up on earth is, its the only feasible answer outside of robot goku showing up and flying shepard out of there.

The fire clearly envelops the entire ring of the citadel as the gigantic arms are separated and deal with lesser explosions.

I don't see this as a huge
issue. I mean, if you were willing to accept that somehow Shepard's brain
survived re-entry to a planet from outer space, then this shouldn't be that big
of a deal. 



It is a pretty invalid point really. There was
obviously a way that Shepard survived. It is fiction. I am sure it is going to
be ridiculous, but at the end of the day-- it is just a story. It isn't like we
watched Shepard die. It was just assumed that Shepard died from the blast in
the destroy option, and then you get a little surprise if you got a high enough
EMS--Shepard is alive. If you think that is a bad way to end it, that is fine. In fact, I agree. But don't
suddenly get butthurt over physics lol.

[Bill Casey]

Bill Casey wrote...

Harbinger - We Are Your Genetic Destiny

Harbinger - Evolution cannot be stopped

Harbinger - Embrace Perfection

some more interesting clips...

Prothean Beacon

Extensive Genetic Rewrite

Mordin on Collectors, why they must be Destroyed

Javik on Zha'Til

You should have thought of that before

Avoiding War With Synthetics Through Synthesis, Playing God

Modifié par Bill Casey, 08 mai 2012 - 05:21 .

[Dendio1]

Bill Casey wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

Harbinger - We Are Your Genetic Destiny

Harbinger - Evolution cannot be stopped

Harbinger - Embrace Perfection

some more interesting clips...

Prothean Beacon

Extensive Genetic Rewrite

Mordin on Collectors, why they must be Destroyed

Javik on Zha'Til

You should have thought of that before

Avoiding War With Synthetics Through Synthesis, Playing God

nice links.

Could the prothean beacon have been detailing the conversion of protheans to collectors? The images seem to match what mordin and edi reference in the replacing of organic matter with synthetic parts. Could it be a warning against synthesis or attempting  to control reapers through embedding onceself with thier tech?


All of these links are instances of the game rejecting the notion of synthesis for different reasons. Nice finds

Modifié par Dendio1, 08 mai 2012 - 05:49 .

[pro5]

I've recently finished reading 'Brave New World' novel, and want to share my thoughts on how it ties into ME ending (it was referenced in M.Walters notes sheet from the Final Hours app).

I made a thread about this almost a month ago, but at that time I'd only read a Wikipedia summary of the novel and some reviews.

Now, my opinion.

The final pages of the novel are very depressing, and try as I might, I couldn't fathom how it could have anything to do with ME3 except maybe by echoing the depressing idea of "galactic dark age" the ending seems to promote (I really, really hope that's not the inspiration Walters took from the novel).

However...

Just before that final segment, there is a VERY interesting conversation between the Savage and the Controller, Mustapha Mond - right before the Savage leaves for his voluntary isolation. When I was reading it, it felt like the entire message of the novel was condensed in that one single dialog, it was that important.

One word that was used very frequently in that piece of conversation was conditioning. The controller is describing how technologically ruled society and civilization in their days cannot exist without pre-conditioning people into their future lifestyles, and the Savage tries to argue (with little success). Basically, the idea of conditioning is that the person is engineered from birth to respond with certain reactions to certain events and conditions. In this way, they will always be content and happy, and are incapable of any line of thought that would go against the society's norm.

I don't know about you, but that SCREAMS indoctrination to me, people. 

And now, add the fact that in the "End of the First Matrix" (also in M.W. notes), Neo wakes up in the real world, after passing a test and proving he is The One...

Modifié par pro5, 08 mai 2012 - 06:15 .

[Bill Casey]

pro5 wrote...

One word that was used very frequently in that piece of conversation was conditioning. The controller is describing how technologically ruled society and civilization in their days cannot exist without pre-conditioning people into their future lifestyles, and the Savage tries to argue (with little success). Basically, the idea of conditioning is that the person is engineered from birth to respond with certain reactions to certain events and conditions. In this way, they will always be content and happy, and are incapable of any line of thought that would go against the society's norm.

I don't know about you, but that SCREAMS indoctrination to me, people. 

Conditioning?
Indoctrination?

hmmm...

The Codex

Reaper "indoctrination" is an insidious means of corrupting organic minds, "reprogramming" the brain through physical and psychological conditioning

Modifié par Bill Casey, 08 mai 2012 - 06:27 .

[pro5]

Bill Casey wrote...

pro5 wrote...

One word that was used very frequently in that piece of conversation was conditioning. The controller is describing how technologically ruled society and civilization in their days cannot exist without pre-conditioning people into their future lifestyles, and the Savage tries to argue (with little success). Basically, the idea of conditioning is that the person is engineered from birth to respond with certain reactions to certain events and conditions. In this way, they will always be content and happy, and are incapable of any line of thought that would go against the society's norm.

I don't know about you, but that SCREAMS indoctrination to me, people. 

Conditioning?
Indoctrination?

hmmm...

The Codex

Reaper "indoctrination" is an insidious means of corrupting organic minds, "reprogramming" the brain through physical and psychological conditioning

EXACTLY!

[pro5]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

All the choices are bad, especially if BW meant us to take the Catalyst's words literally, assuming he was being completely honest. The galaxy is a total mess.

But we know he wasn't. Even if we forget about Shepard surviving Destroy, the game goes out of its way to show the player that it's possible to have peace without "playing God" and implementing something like Synthesis. The only reason why the Quarian/Geth war lasted this long is because no quarians even tried to interact with the geth peacefully.

I find it amusing how some people (not referring to anyone in particular here) bring up Occam's Razor when trying to prove a point that it's more probable Bioware failed miserably at its job, rather than they implemented a twist in the ending.

Occam's Razor is a logical principle urging one to select among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions and thereby offers the simplest explanation of the effect. Let's consider the situation and evaluate what assumptions each side is making in this case:

A. 
The writers forgot that the Reapers are a synthetic+organic hybrid, and Synthesis is a mere coincidence.
The writers forgot that a major part of their game so far has run contrary to the claim "synthetics and organics will always be at war".
The writers forgot simple rules of logic which dictate that if a Reaper-controlled (jndoctrinated) character pursues a goal, then it's really the Reapers' goal, not his.
The writers forgot or contradicted important themes of their own franchise in the last 10 minutes of that franchise, despite having followed them perfectly up to that moment.

B.
The writers tried to implement a twist in the ending similar to what their company has done before, but it didn't work so well due to how poorly it was delivered.

If you think A is more likely than B, it's you who are not thinking logically (not saying it's not possible you're still right)

Modifié par pro5, 08 mai 2012 - 11:35 .

[ForgeDark]

Well, the video outlines exactly why I chose Destroy despite not wanting to kill EDI/Geth. I haven't read any of the indoctrination theories, and I didn't get Synthesis as an option in my game so this video was the first time I considered that Synthesis is exactly what a Reaper is. The idea of that is very creepy. However, I can't agree with your conclusions that it is what Bioware intended the endings to mean - If it were, why is Synthesis/Control only given to you as an option if you've spent a lot of resources into building the crucible? Surely it should be the other way round, that Destroy is only given to you if you have high EMS?

[Ultra Prism]

You know what paying 80 bucks to figure out the ending isn't worth of my time but being such hardcore ... its difficult to let go such beloved series in these nonsensical ending ... frustration beyond anything ... now became focused anger on Bioware for not delivering what was promise

[PsyrenY]

ReXspec wrote...


Come on, dude... you know better then that.  If you are going to present a logical argument against something, you may as well do the opposing side the courtesy of observing and listening your oppositions case then presenting a logical argument.  Not doing so makes you seem like a pretentious, rise-inducing ****** that honestly believes he is right, and everyone else is wrong.

This video presents Control and Synthesis as being "wrong" due to constructing the strawmen proposed by Saren and TIM, and equating their desires to the Crucible's options.

Saren's vision is similar to Synthesis, but it is NOT the same.
TIM's vision is similar to Control, but it is NOT the same.

Any attempt to equate these merely appeals to the emotional aversion to siding with a perceived enemy. It's Association Fallacy, end of.

[WhiteVV1ings]

Bump, I'm currently viewing the video but so far it's good and worth more exposure. Great job.

[pro5]

Optimystic_X wrote...

This video presents Control and Synthesis as being "wrong" due to constructing the strawmen proposed by Saren and TIM, and equating their desires to the Crucible's options.

Saren's vision is similar to Synthesis, but it is NOT the same.
TIM's vision is similar to Control, but it is NOT the same.

Any attempt to equate these merely appeals to the emotional aversion to siding with a perceived enemy. It's Association Fallacy, end of.

My reply to you is on the 3rd page of this thread.

pro5 wrote...

After looking through your comments in this thread, it seems to me (please correct me if I'm wrong) that you stopped watching before reaching second half of the video.

In that case, I suggest you come back and resume from where you left off. This video is much more than just me trying to say "everyone good is for Destroy, everyone evil is for something else - therefore Destroy forever".

It's hard to take your arguments seriously when you obviously don't know what you are arguing against.

And my reply to the "logical fallacy"  argument is on the 4th page, where I say "it's a valid point". But that's not what the video is about, and if you watched it full you'd know that.

Modifié par pro5, 08 mai 2012 - 02:49 .

[frylock23]

pro5 wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

All the choices are bad, especially if BW meant us to take the Catalyst's words literally, assuming he was being completely honest. The galaxy is a total mess.

But we know he wasn't. Even if we forget about Shepard surviving Destroy, the game goes out of its way to show the player that it's possible to have peace without "playing God" and implementing something like Synthesis. The only reason why the Quarian/Geth war lasted this long is because no quarians even tried to interact with the geth peacefully.

I find it amusing how some people (not referring to anyone in particular here) bring up Occam's Razor when trying to prove a point that it's more probable Bioware failed miserably at its job, rather than they implemented a twist in the ending.

Occam's Razor is a logical principle urging one to select among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions and thereby offers the simplest explanation of the effect. Let's consider the situation and evaluate what assumptions each side is making in this case:

A. 
The writers forgot that the Reapers are a synthetic+organic hybrid, and Synthesis is a mere coincidence.
The writers forgot that a major part of their game so far has run contrary to the claim "synthetics and organics will always be at war".
The writers forgot simple rules of logic which dictate that if a Reaper-controlled (jndoctrinated) character pursues a goal, then it's really the Reapers' goal, not his.
The writers forgot or contradicted important themes of their own franchise in the last 10 minutes of that franchise, despite having followed them perfectly up to that moment.

B.
The writers tried to implement a twist in the ending similar to what their company has done before, but it didn't work so well due to how poorly it was delivered.

If you think A is more likely than B, it's you who are not thinking logically (not saying it's not possible you're still right)

Yeah, but even if you follow Occam's Razor and go with B, the main reasons that their poorly implemented twist didn't work all dwell within the reasons behind A, so it's not as cut and dried as you think. Seriously, the reasons, their twist didn't work pretty much behind your support for A, so A and B are not neceesarily perfect separate hypothesis the way you've outlined them.

[frylock23]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Saren's vision is similar to Synthesis, but it is NOT the same.
TIM's vision is similar to Control, but it is NOT the same.

Please elaborate. The only thing I've seen you offer on this point thus far is that you personally believe this to be true without any actual proof beyond the Normandy cut scene which so violates everything we know that it makes no sense that anyone use it as proof of anything.

[Ieldra]

Optimystic_X wrote...

ReXspec wrote...
Come on, dude... you know better then that.  If you are going to present a logical argument against something, you may as well do the opposing side the courtesy of observing and listening your oppositions case then presenting a logical argument.  Not doing so makes you seem like a pretentious, rise-inducing ****** that honestly believes he is right, and everyone else is wrong.

This video presents Control and Synthesis as being "wrong" due to constructing the strawmen proposed by Saren and TIM, and equating their desires to the Crucible's options.

Saren's vision is similar to Synthesis, but it is NOT the same.
TIM's vision is similar to Control, but it is NOT the same.

Any attempt to equate these merely appeals to the emotional aversion to siding with a perceived enemy. It's Association Fallacy, end of.

Exactly this. To be precise:

(1) The Normandy scene implies that Joker and EDI are themselves, thank you very much. Saren was not.
(2) Saren thought submitting to the Reapers would be a good idea. We do not.
(3) He embraced the melding of synthetic and organic under the Reapers' rule. If we choose Synthesis, we support it under nobody's rule, even if the change is forced.
(3) The merit of an idea is independent from the morality of those who support them. That Saren had a vision of melding organics and synthetics does not mean the idea is bad. That TIM had a vision of controlling the Reapers does not mean the idea is bad.

Association fallacies are described thusly:

from Wikipedia....
An association fallacy is an inductive informal fallacy of the type hasty generalization or red herring which asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association. The two types are sometimes referred to as guilt by association and honor by association. Association fallacies are a special case of red herring, and can be based on an appeal to emotion.

The assertion follows exactly the formal notation:

Premise 1. Saren is bad
Premise 2. Saren has visions of melding organics and synthetics
Conclusion:  Having visions of melding organics and synthetics is bad

Which is of course complete nonsense. Nothing of the sort follows in any way. I think people's emotional aversion to Synthesis is running away with their logic when they assert this. And a 40-minute video that does basically nothing but make this assertion is 40 minutes of complete nonsense.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 08 mai 2012 - 03:47 .

[pro5]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Optimystic_X wrote...

ReXspec wrote...
Come on, dude... you know better then that.  If you are going to present a logical argument against something, you may as well do the opposing side the courtesy of observing and listening your oppositions case then presenting a logical argument.  Not doing so makes you seem like a pretentious, rise-inducing ****** that honestly believes he is right, and everyone else is wrong.

This video presents Control and Synthesis as being "wrong" due to constructing the strawmen proposed by Saren and TIM, and equating their desires to the Crucible's options.

Saren's vision is similar to Synthesis, but it is NOT the same.
TIM's vision is similar to Control, but it is NOT the same.

Any attempt to equate these merely appeals to the emotional aversion to siding with a perceived enemy. It's Association Fallacy, end of.

Exactly this. To be precise:

(1) The Normandy scene implies that Joker and EDI are themselves, thank you very much. Saren was not.
(2) Saren thought submitting to the Reapers would be a good idea. We do not.
(3) He embraced the melding of synthetic and organic under the Reapers' rule. If we choose Synthesis, we support it under nobody's rule, even if the change is forced.
(3) The merit of an idea is independent from the morality of those who support them. That Saren had a vision of melding organics and synthetics does not mean the idea is bad. That TIM had a vision of controlling the Reapers does not mean the idea is bad.

Association fallacies are described thusly:

from Wikipedia....
An association fallacy is an inductive informal fallacy of the type hasty generalization or red herring which asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association. The two types are sometimes referred to as guilt by association and honor by association. Association fallacies are a special case of red herring, and can be based on an appeal to emotion.

The assertion follows exactly the formal notation:

Premise 1. Saren is bad
Premise 2. Saren has visions of melding organics and synthetics
Conclusion:  Having visions of melding organics and synthetics is bad

Which is of course complete nonsense. Nothing of the sort follows in any way. I think people's emotional aversion to Synthesis is running away with their logic when they assert this. And a 40-minute video that does basically nothing but make this assertion is 40 minutes of complete nonsense.

Sigh...

Is anyone here listening to me at all?

I accept your argument. It is VALID.

I said so on the 4th page of the thread. And I followed up by saying that my primary reasons for including that build-up segment were DIFFERENT.

[pro5]

frylock23 wrote...

Yeah, but even if you follow Occam's Razor and go with B, the main reasons that their poorly implemented twist didn't work all dwell within the reasons behind A, so it's not as cut and dried as you think. Seriously, the reasons, their twist didn't work pretty much behind your support for A, so A and B are not neceesarily perfect separate hypothesis the way you've outlined them.

I would argue that it didn't work mainly because they did not include a very important element in the game - the continuation of the story after making the right choice. The Hordes of the Underdark had false endings for making the wrong choices, but it also had a real ending if you made the right one. That important element is missing in ME3, and that is the main reason for me to say the ending was delivered badly.

[Fancy Flight Engineering]

Bump.

[Belisarius09]

Awesome vid. I agree entirely with your perspective.

[Manuel La Bor]

Bump for great justice

[pro5]

eyeofhorus87 wrote...

However, I can't agree with your conclusions that it is what Bioware intended the endings to mean - If it were, why is Synthesis/Control only given to you as an option if you've spent a lot of resources into building the crucible?

To make it a more attractive choice, obviously. Remember, they're messing with our heads here.

EMS prerequisite makes it seem to the player that Synthesis is the BEST choice, because he had to EARN it.

Modifié par pro5, 08 mai 2012 - 07:18 .

[pro5]

bump

[Jorji Costava]

Glad to see this discussion is continuing. Let me just quickly respond to a point from earlier:

pro5 wrote...

I would argue that "the least bad choice" would be the one that seems to pose the least risk at the moment of Shepard's making the decision. I can't fathom considering Control as such, because mere moments before, the "Catalyst" told Shepard that "they" were controlling TIM, who'd been advertising Control. He just outright goes and says that: "...we were already controlling him.".

If they were controlling him, his agenda was really their agenda. The Reapers would condition him against any line of thought that could possibly go against their design. If Reaper-controlled TIM says that Control is a good solution, then the Reapers consider Control a good solution. I'm not sure how else to interpret the situation, it seems a very straightforward logical conclusion to me.

Any solution that benefits my enemy is unacceptable to me, thus Destroy is really the only option left. It's that simple.

These are very good points. Strictly speaking, I don't think it's quite right to say that control is the Reapers' agenda. Their agenda is to wipe out advanced organic life; it is presumably not to fall under the control of some schmuck. It's more accurate to say that control is the agenda that Reapers want people to believe: An analogy would be totalitarian leaders wanting their subjects to believe the state religion, while not believing it themselves.

That doesn't make control sound any better, but because of the way the final choice is structured, I think there are extenuating circumstances. Why did the Reapers want TIM to believe control was possible? Presumably, to make him oppose the efforts of all the other species to fight the Reapers by doing various naughty deeds (i.e. husk-ifying people at Sanctuary, trying to prevent the genophage from being cured, etc.). As far as I can tell, grabbing those two glowing doodads doesn't make Shepard spontaneously want to do things like this, unless you're supposing that the catalyst is lying about the crucible, or if you're going all-in with IT.

In short, the control ideology isn't the Reapers' ideology; it's the Reapers' means to an end. But unless you think the catalyst is unreliable in his description of what the crucible does (and more than that, unreliable in a very specific way), there's no reason to think that those ends will be accomplished by you picking the control option at the end of the game.

Lastly, I just want to say something about why the destroy ending was immersion-breaking for me. I think that control comes accross as far more hypocritical because whereas we just argued with TIM that it was a bad idea, we simply aren't allowed the opportunity to challenge the catalyst's notion that war between synthetics and organics is inevitable. Imagine choosing destroy if you could have this conversation:

Star brat: "The created will always rebel against their creators."
Shepard: "That's ridiculous! I brokered peace between the Geth and Quarians! And I helped EDI find love with Joker, an organic. Synthetics and organics CAN coexist, and all sentient beings have a right to continued existence."
Star brat: "Okay, whatever dude. Anyway, here are your options. Option A destroys the Reapers, but it wipes out all synthetic life."
Shepard: "Cool! Sign me up for that one!"

To my eyes, at least, this seems worse than choosing control after having argued with TIM about it. If we could have this conversation (or, if it were Han Gerrel shown shooting that tube instead of Anderson), I think a lot of people would be less gung-ho about destroy. That doesn't mean control is necessarily good, however. Every choice involves a strong element of moral hypocrisy, which is why the ending is so troublesome (and which is why we need folks like you to come up with creative re-interpretations of them).