449 réponses à ce sujet

[Leem_0001]

[quote]Cypher_CS wrote...

[quote]Leem_0001 wrote...


Haha, I guess this is the point that divides us most, as we see it from other sides. But from my point of view there is nothing that shows you interpretation of the Cruicible and Catalyst is correct. Nothing to show that Control was added by this splinter group of a previous cycle, in fact all that we have seen and are told goes against it, or that there was only the destroy option originally, and that the synthesis was only added recently. [/quote]

 [/quote]

Nothing except logic.

We do know, pretty much for a fact, that the Crucible was designed, over cycles, to Destroy the Reapers.
We do know, that there were other groups like Cerberus in previous cycles. One group we know for a fact (in the Prothean cycles), and we know they sabotaged the Crucible in that cycle. We also know, for a fact, that Cerberus was researching, quite heavily, various control technologies - and that it wanted to put their own agents on the Crucible project.
So far so good?

It does not take a big logical leap to assume that Humans aren't the first ones to try this.  But even so, they have succeeded to plant something. Be it in the Crucible itself or through the Citadel, Cerberus's goal was to Control Reapers.
Take a logical leap here - how would you control AIs? Or VIs?
How is it not logical to conclude that the Crucible, connected to the Citadel, is the means to either lift the Kill Switch or the Control Switch?

So far?

Sythesis is the only one not discussed before.

[quote]Leem_0001 wrote... 
In fact, what the starchild says, is that the cruicible changed him and created new possibilities. Plural. Then it shows the three options. This implies that all of these are new. So goes against your theories. It isnt in the game that any splinter group added this option to the crucible - or if it is then could you provide proof? 
[/quote]
Yes, I don't see the problem here.
The Catalyst's (again, just a word taken from Shepard's head, to communicate with him) ONLY solution was to continue the Cycle.
Of course once you connect the Crucible it is now faced with different options. Options it never had before (and it doesn't matter why - it's again the divergent thinking/imagination for AI debate).
The Crucible change it. Created new possibilites. Where's the problem?
It doesn't go againt any theory. All three are new.

[quote]
And Control does only control the Reapers, Starchild makes this clear. 
[/quote]
Don't know how clear this is. I'll need to look at the scene again.
[/quote]

Again, I personally feel the leaps in logic are far to huge to be seen as good story telling. They do not stack up at all from my personal view. Far to many variables, too much guess work, too many giant leaps in logic. Cerbrus have studies control over other species, but if you read the books you will know a lot of that is studying Reaper tech. Are you telling me they are using the Reapers own tech to control them? And in no way was it hinted that they succeeded to that kind of level - in fact it is stated they didnt, as the Reapers are controlling TIM! Same for the splinter faction from the Protheans cycle, if I remember correctly. How would Reapers let indoctrinated organics add a weapon to the crucible / citadel that could be used to enslave them.

Again, you are welcome to your opinion, but the leaps in logic are too large to defy. Far too large.

[Cypher_CS]

Please, Lee, point out what you believe to be logical inconsistencies. All of them.
Let's hash it out.

Also, it's perfectly logical that they use Reaper tech to control reapers.
If you want to control a UAV, you first need to catch it and reverse engineer it (sorry, military experience talking), no?
And we do see success - with the various Cerberus assault forces. They are controlled by Cerberus.
So yeah, that would be the tech to use to control Reapers.
But the problem would still remain two fold:
1. Prevent their Destruction, to be able to Control them.
2. Do it all at once, and not system by system (cause then they retaliate).
The solution to #1 is incorporating the tech in the Crucible, to either (a) sabotage it to "fire" a different signal than Kill or, ( sabotage it so it doesn't work and use the Citadel directly.
The solution to #2 is the Citadel - same as for Destroy.

[SubAstris]

ArchLord James wrote...

Remain Civil, refrain from name calling or generalizing, and simply address the blatantly obvious errors that Strange Aeons pointed out in this post on another thread. Defend the endings if you dare! Consider this a debate competition. This guy just absolutely nailed what is wrong with the endings, and everyone who hates the endings should unify behind these reasons why the endings are terrible, not the weak "our choices dont matter" line.

Strange Aeons Wrote:

I've posted this before, but here is my take:

What’s truly baffling about the ending is that each variation manages to disregard completely the specific lessons of the previous events in its own unique way.
 
The explanation of the Reapers and the destroy (red) ending in particular might resonate if there were actually some ongoing tension about the latent danger of synthetics…except that everything we saw in the last two games teaches us exactly the opposite.  I'm not talking about what people imagine might, maybe, possibly could happen sometime in the future; I'm talking about what the game actually shows us.  They go to great lengths to establish that synthetics are alive and capable of growth and selflessness and friendship and individuality and love just in time for Shepard to murder them all.  It’s like ending Pinocchio with Geppetto stuffing him into a wood chipper.

Then there’s the (blue) option to ASSUME DIRECT CONTROL of the Reapers.  This scenario requires us to ignore that (at least if you were a paragon) you just spent the entire previous game arguing with the Illusive Man that using the Reapers’ tactics of subjugation against them was morally abhorrent.  Shepard says outright that he will not sacrifice his soul for victory.  In fact, in the scene literally just prior to this we explained to the Illusive Man that attempting to control the Reapers is evil and insane and doomed to failure.  So persuasive was Shepard’s argument that the Illusive Man shot himself in the head to escape the horror of what he had become.  Now let’s just go ahead and try the same thing ourselves.  What could possibly go wrong?

The most horrific outcome of all is the synthesis (green) ending, which would have us accept that Shepard transforms the galaxy’s entire population against their will into man-machine hybrids, akin to the monstrous Reapers and their minions whom we just spent three games fighting.  You know, minions like Saren and the Illusive Man and the entire Prothean race who were turned into man-machine hybrids and thereby became slaves of the Reapers.  He does this based on the assurances of a mysterious entity who admits it is working with the Reapers and who hastily appeared out of nowhere just as Shepard arrived at the weapon that could potentially defeat them.  Sounds legit.

So, after stuffing the myriad choices we’ve made throughout the series into a blender and homogenizing them into a single “readiness” number, the defining gameplay mechanic of the series (the dialogue wheel) vanishes at the most crucial moment and this player-driven epic is reduced to three choices: genocide, becoming a monster that violates every ethical principle you’ve lived by, or raping the entire galaxy.

And then you die.

And then the game is deliberately obscure about how your choices impact not only the galaxy but, far more importantly, the characters whom you have come to love and who are the lifeblood of the game.

The identity of Mass Effect is not in its visual style or its gameplay, which has changed substantially over the course of the series.  It’s not even in its story, because there is no one story: every Shepard is different.  The defining vision of Mass Effect, without which it is nothing, is its unprecedented interactivity that allows you to shape your own story—and, this being a video game, significantly affect the outcome if you played well enough.

That’s what the last two games did, and it’s precisely what ME3’s ending failed to deliver

Interesting points, but definitely not perfect. The reason why Control becomes a plausible in the end because you really do have the power to control the Reapers, before it was just a dream (or a nightmare, depends how you look at it) but the Catalyst has given control over to you.

The reason why TIM shot himself in the head was not because he realised controlling the Reapers was a crap idea, rather he realised that the Reapers were invading his mind.

As for the Catalyst, people seem to just assume he is lying because he is linked with Reapers, which doesn't necessarily follow. We have no evidence to suggest that he is actually lying

[Cypher_CS]

SubAstris wrote...

The reason why TIM shot himself in the head was not because he realised controlling the Reapers was a crap idea, rather he realised that the Reapers were invading his mind.

Ah, thank you. Missed that point.

Basically, TIM realized what the Catalyst later says - while Control might be a good option (for TIM it's for Human Supremacy, mind you, not galactic peace), he realized that he was far gone to do it himself. Yet, hopefully, Shepard isn't.

[Leem_0001]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Please, Lee, point out what you believe to be logical inconsistencies. All of them.
Let's hash it out.

Also, it's perfectly logical that they use Reaper tech to control reapers.
If you want to control a UAV, you first need to catch it and reverse engineer it (sorry, military experience talking), no?
And we do see success - with the various Cerberus assault forces. They are controlled by Cerberus.
So yeah, that would be the tech to use to control Reapers.
But the problem would still remain two fold:
1. Prevent their Destruction, to be able to Control them.
2. Do it all at once, and not system by system (cause then they retaliate).
The solution to #1 is incorporating the tech in the Crucible, to either (a) sabotage it to "fire" a different signal than Kill or, ( sabotage it so it doesn't work and use the Citadel directly.
The solution to #2 is the Citadel - same as for Destroy.

Well, for the sake of this discussion, lets just keep it to the choices presented at the end (and not get into the 'where was Joker going, how was his squad on board etc'). It's that if what you are saying is correct, and previous cycles somehow did get the control option into the mix, it should be explained a lot more because to get to that is a bit of a leap. A stretch.

Nothing is stated in the game that Cerberus get anywhere near to that level of technology to be able to do that. And, as I said, the IM is indoctrinated. Why would the Reapers, who are controlling him, let him add this option in there? Same for previous cycles - if memory serves right, Javik says that the faction that wanted control, were indoctinated. So the same question, why would the reapers let those they control add technology that would enslave them?

Then there is the thing about needing the catalyst to fire, but no one knows what the catalyst is or how it works. Therefore how was it incorporated into the design? That doesn't stack up because they would have needed to know about this catalyst, what it was and how it was used, to base a design around it.  

Then there is the issue of the Starchild and it's goals. It firmly believes that if synthetic life is allowed to progress then it will wipe out organics completely. Removing the players views on this, that is what the Catalyst believes to be true. So if this is the case, and his ultimate goal is to save, or preserve, organics, why does he allow the Destroy or Control ending? This goes against his goals.

Those are the things that, when considering the choices at the end, don't feel right with me, from a storytelling perspective. ME is usually pretty good at giving us facts about things, and in something as important as the series end (or Shepards story end) then to leave so much to guesswork is very lazy on their part.

Won't go into the other issues, as this discussion has kind of swung towards the choices that are presented to Shepard.

[Cypher_CS]

Leem_0001 wrote...
Well, for the sake of this discussion, lets just keep it to the choices presented at the end (and not get into the 'where was Joker going, how was his squad on board etc'). It's that if what you are saying is correct, and previous cycles somehow did get the control option into the mix, it should be explained a lot more because to get to that is a bit of a leap. A stretch.

Sorry, I'm not saying that they did. I'm saying it stands to reason, if you don't assume that Humans are bestest ever species to come out in the entire galaxy throughout all the Cycles.
The only thing that is show that Cerberus-like groups existed before. We have proof of at least 1 (in the Prothean cycle). 
There's no logical leap to assume that there were more before it - considering the there were countless cycles. Right?

Leem_0001 wrote... 
Nothing is stated in the game that Cerberus get anywhere near to that level of technology to be able to do that. And, as I said, the IM is indoctrinated. Why would the Reapers, who are controlling him, let him add this option in there? Same for previous cycles - if memory serves right, Javik says that the faction that wanted control, were indoctinated. So the same question, why would the reapers let those they control add technology that would enslave them?

Yes, TIM is indoctrinated. Or, rather, nearly so.
He becomes so towards the end. That doesn't make his entire quest for Control any less achievable.
We know, for a fact, that he achieved the ability to control people, Humans and maybe more than humans. We see it at the very begining on Mars. And we see it with the various experiment recordings both of Miranda's dad and of TIM himself.

Leem_0001 wrote... 
Then there is the thing about needing the catalyst to fire, but no one knows what the catalyst is or how it works. Therefore how was it incorporated into the design? That doesn't stack up because they would have needed to know about this catalyst, what it was and how it was used, to base a design around it.  

No one in THIS cycle knows what it is.
But in the previous cycles they figured it out, but never got close to connecting them.
Protheans were the closest, till humans actually did connect. This is more than implied in the various conversations and actual story flow.

Leem_0001 wrote... 
Then there is the issue of the Starchild and it's goals. It firmly believes that if synthetic life is allowed to progress then it will wipe out organics completely. Removing the players views on this, that is what the Catalyst believes to be true. So if this is the case, and his ultimate goal is to save, or preserve, organics, why does he allow the Destroy or Control ending? This goes against his goals.

Asked and answered. It does NOT allow those options - they are there.
Those options are NOT of it's design.

[AlexXIV]

Optimystic_X wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...
We use blueprints and nobody knows where they come from. And since we proved that the Catalyst's solution was wrong by finishing it and getting on the Citadel I think chances are that the Reapers invented the Crucible to test their solution. Because that's all the Crusible does. It is not a weapon as we thought. Surprise surprise, epic twist.

If it was theirs, explain the following:

1) Why didn't it incorporate the Catalyst from the beginning?
2) Why didn't they build and use it themselves if they really like Synthesis that much?


I do think they may have common origins (i.e. the same race could have designed both Reapers and Crucible) but believe the latter was independent of the former.

Well you should explain to me because you claim it makes sense, not I. Explain how someone else could have created the Crucible or planned it without ever testing, then making it work and it basically does nothing but wake the Catalyst from his sleep or whatever.

My theory however is that it is a fail check. Like programs have fail checks whether everything is working as planned. The fact that the organics could not finish the crucible showed that their solution worked. Status quo maintained. When they finished it and brought someone (shepard and anderson) on the citadel it showed them they had evolved despite the Starbrat's solution. Which means, at some point, if they keep evolving, they will outmatch the Reapers. And then it failed. Typical scenario of nature vs tech where in the end tech fails and nature prevails.

However from this point nothing makes sense. Because Shepard gets to make the calls. I don't know why, maybe someone can enlighten me. My guess Bioware wanted to give us choice even if it makes no sense in context of the plot. So they just ignore that part and let us choose.

Another thing that is strange is that the united fleet actually manages to dock the crucible at the citadel even though TIM was the Reaper spy and knew the plan. So basically the Reapers let it happen. Then they fought us at the ground, to stop us from reaching the beam, but didn't turn it off either. Either it was all a plan of them or ... I don't know, they are stupid. But since it is Bioware's stupidity, Shepard and the united fleet are stupid as well and don't get suspicious.

Sorry this has all been beaten to death for months. It is always the same thing and nobody can give a satisfactory answer. People who claim they like it and can explain things always start at some point explaining some things but eventually they all end up without answers. I can go on forever, and every half decent answer you make brings up more questions. You can't win this because Bioware didn' think i through. I don't know maybe they hoped someone would make sense to it or something.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 03 mai 2012 - 05:57 .

[LinksOcarina]

ArchLord James wrote...

Remain Civil, refrain from name calling or generalizing, and simply address the blatantly obvious errors that Strange Aeons pointed out in this post on another thread. Defend the endings if you dare! Consider this a debate competition. This guy just absolutely nailed what is wrong with the endings, and everyone who hates the endings should unify behind these reasons why the endings are terrible, not the weak "our choices dont matter" line.

Strange Aeons Wrote:

I've posted this before, but here is my take:

What’s truly baffling about the ending is that each variation manages to disregard completely the specific lessons of the previous events in its own unique way.
 
The explanation of the Reapers and the destroy (red) ending in particular might resonate if there were actually some ongoing tension about the latent danger of synthetics…except that everything we saw in the last two games teaches us exactly the opposite.  I'm not talking about what people imagine might, maybe, possibly could happen sometime in the future; I'm talking about what the game actually shows us.  They go to great lengths to establish that synthetics are alive and capable of growth and selflessness and friendship and individuality and love just in time for Shepard to murder them all.  It’s like ending Pinocchio with Geppetto stuffing him into a wood chipper.

Then there’s the (blue) option to ASSUME DIRECT CONTROL of the Reapers.  This scenario requires us to ignore that (at least if you were a paragon) you just spent the entire previous game arguing with the Illusive Man that using the Reapers’ tactics of subjugation against them was morally abhorrent.  Shepard says outright that he will not sacrifice his soul for victory.  In fact, in the scene literally just prior to this we explained to the Illusive Man that attempting to control the Reapers is evil and insane and doomed to failure.  So persuasive was Shepard’s argument that the Illusive Man shot himself in the head to escape the horror of what he had become.  Now let’s just go ahead and try the same thing ourselves.  What could possibly go wrong?

The most horrific outcome of all is the synthesis (green) ending, which would have us accept that Shepard transforms the galaxy’s entire population against their will into man-machine hybrids, akin to the monstrous Reapers and their minions whom we just spent three games fighting.  You know, minions like Saren and the Illusive Man and the entire Prothean race who were turned into man-machine hybrids and thereby became slaves of the Reapers.  He does this based on the assurances of a mysterious entity who admits it is working with the Reapers and who hastily appeared out of nowhere just as Shepard arrived at the weapon that could potentially defeat them.  Sounds legit.

So, after stuffing the myriad choices we’ve made throughout the series into a blender and homogenizing them into a single “readiness” number, the defining gameplay mechanic of the series (the dialogue wheel) vanishes at the most crucial moment and this player-driven epic is reduced to three choices: genocide, becoming a monster that violates every ethical principle you’ve lived by, or raping the entire galaxy.

And then you die.

And then the game is deliberately obscure about how your choices impact not only the galaxy but, far more importantly, the characters whom you have come to love and who are the lifeblood of the game.

The identity of Mass Effect is not in its visual style or its gameplay, which has changed substantially over the course of the series.  It’s not even in its story, because there is no one story: every Shepard is different.  The defining vision of Mass Effect, without which it is nothing, is its unprecedented interactivity that allows you to shape your own story—and, this being a video game, significantly affect the outcome if you played well enough.

That’s what the last two games did, and it’s precisely what ME3’s ending failed to deliver

i'm glad were unifying by one person. But here is my rebuttle.

The premise of destroy is under the assumption that synthetics will dominate organics, and that it is inevitable. You are right, the Geth and EDI are against this notion and it makes the Catalyst seem like a liar in some respects, but the Geth and EDI earned their sentinence the hard way, by using reaper technology to achieve that full zenith and ascend to that point of true conscience.

In mass effect 1, we had two instances of Rogue AI's going berserk, first, on the Citadel, and second on the Moon. The Citadel had a synthetic AI  that chose to eliminate organics and join up with the Geth. The Rogue AI on the moon coded a message that said HELP ME in binary, and was acting in self-defense against organics there.

The problem with his point of view on destroy is that he is taking the face value of Mass Effect 3 into account, and not Mass Effect the series. The reason I say this is because there have been several examples in game one where AI has pretty much tried to kill Shepard and other organics, as noted above. In Mass Effect 2, we only had EDI and the Geth to contend with, and we were given the second point of view, that AI is not dangerous, just alien to what we know. The entire mission on the Geth Ship with Legion is emblematic of this philosophy, and the choice of destorying or re-writing them (well get back to this later) becomes a harrowing choice that makes neither outcome plesant, depending on your outlook.

That said, the point is that yes, the Geth and EDI are not vicious AIs, but they are also individuals. What would stop an AI from the future killing Organics, or Organics killing AIs out of racism? What happens if another incident with the Quarians and Geth occurs? Or something similar, with a new race of AIs that feels like conquering the known galaxy? You say it's guesswork, but I say its common sense because it actually would be a case of simple logic here; not everyone will act good, so the chance of what the Catalyst believes coming true is still possible. In fact, considering you can prove him wrong by doing the impossible (in some playthroughs) you actually call him out on this by saying the point of the universe is Chaos, and eradicating it is just as mechanical.

Which leads me into Control, the issue here is that you basically said it, but this is also why it is a singular option you are not locked into, unless if you played poorly and collected no war assets. The control issue you spend the entire time arguing its evil, yes, but at the same time the Catalyst basically says he was already indoctrinated, so while he may have been right that this was an option, he was working for us anyway. I also find it funny people dismiss control so easily because of this, when the coda of the game showcases the reapers going away from the fight, just as the Catalyst promised. I guess stuff taken at face value is bad, but honestly, if it was an issue of being indoctrinated, the game would have showed it, simple as that.

Control is basically harkening back to the choices made in Legions loyalty mission, do you indoctrinate the reapers and make organic life the creators of the cycle, basically. Thats right, control is not killing the reapers, but indoctrinating them to do your bidding. So you basically turn the cycle on its head and now you, Commander Shepard, is the Catalyst that will control the fate of the Reapers. Is it a viable option? Yes. Is it a good one? No, because it presumes slavery of synthetics like the Reapers, the very thing you were trying to avoid for yourself. 

As for Synthesis...the problem here is that the message was clear, but people question the logic of it. Rightfully so, since the combination of synthetic and organic life together does make for something that NEEDS to be explained (so Extended DLC, do that please). The predication that this is what Saren wanted is true, but Saren was also indoctrinated and used as an avatar for the Reapers to allow the Geth a face for their involvement. 

Once again, Synthesis implies ill intent, but shows good intent, the shot of Joker and EDI on the planet together kind of summed it up, but I will go a step further. Many have said that Synthesis would be against the will of the people overall, but I would then say; how would they know? Basically, the only sign of this synthesis is the green circuitry surrounding EDI and Joker, and the explaination from the Catalyst, saying that Organic DNA is infused with AI coding. 

So it becomes an internal change that people may or may not be aware of, or even going further, not care about, especially considering the circumstances they find themselves in. 

There was recent game that came out before Mass Effect called Binary Domain that explored this issue as well; the idea that synthetic life cant be human, but synthetic robots were fully integrated into organic life so easily, they didn't even know they were robots. Of course that explored the drama of finding out something your not, but one of the main plot points is the fact that these synthetic robots can breed and have children...leading to a natural form of synthesis as we see here, enhanced humans who are human and robotic at the same time.

My point is, the entire idea behind Synthesis is to work parallel to what we know about Synthesis. In other words, Saren's point of view on Synthesis is the skewed, wrong version of  subjugating all organic life through destruction, while Shepard forces evolution of all organic life in a symbiotic way, one that is not dominant over the other, and would "in theory", eliminate conflict. 

In theory key here, because everything said, from both sides, is theory at the moment. Even the indoctrination theory, which is frankly pointless and not worth a mention because it would require even more outward thinking and presumptious evidence to support, like everyone has said ad-nauseum.

So, when that dialouge wheel vanishes, you have to make a tough choice. Do you commit a genocide for the few to save the many? Do you reverse the cycle onto the Reapers? Or do you force evolution? It is a good thing this series is based on tough choices, because none of these are pleasant, and honestly, are not supposed to be by design. In the end, that is kind of the point. Even if they showcase a rosy outlook, like Synthesis did, or that you somehow survive in Destroy, the endings of Mass Effect 3 are still left bittersweet based on your actions, but the point is you made that choice in the end.

Two more things. First, something everyone forgets, the choices made before the final ending also shape the choice you make at the games end; if you killed the Geth, no reason to worry about Genocide. If you cured the Genophage, you maybe want to give them a chance to succeed. If you have companions alive or dead all over the place, you would take them into account too, their sacrifices, their losses and gains, what they went through to get to this point. I think what the developers have tried to say in the end is that the game is shaped by your choices so you don't have an ABC ending. The point was not the fact you have 3 choices to pick from, but that previous experiences need to influence which of those three choices you make.

And second, and kind of important, Mass Effect the series has had this issue with endings before. Mass Effect 1 had you essentially make one crucial choice at the games end, effectively giving you an A or B ending. Mass Effect 2 had choices throughout the game affecting only that games suicide mission, and one major choice during the mission that determines the future, once again giving you an A, B, C, D, or E ending, with only the number of coffins in the cargo hold changing in-between. So really, this defining vision of interactivity is kind of a lie to begin with. Dragon Age II had much more interactivity because it define how most of the characters around you behavaed based on your actions, despite not controlling them fully. 

Your move, gentlemen.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

SubAstris wrote...

ArchLord James wrote...

Remain Civil, refrain from name calling or generalizing, and simply address the blatantly obvious errors that Strange Aeons pointed out in this post on another thread. Defend the endings if you dare! Consider this a debate competition. This guy just absolutely nailed what is wrong with the endings, and everyone who hates the endings should unify behind these reasons why the endings are terrible, not the weak "our choices dont matter" line.

Strange Aeons Wrote:

I've posted this before, but here is my take:

What’s truly baffling about the ending is that each variation manages to disregard completely the specific lessons of the previous events in its own unique way.
 
The explanation of the Reapers and the destroy (red) ending in particular might resonate if there were actually some ongoing tension about the latent danger of synthetics…except that everything we saw in the last two games teaches us exactly the opposite.  I'm not talking about what people imagine might, maybe, possibly could happen sometime in the future; I'm talking about what the game actually shows us.  They go to great lengths to establish that synthetics are alive and capable of growth and selflessness and friendship and individuality and love just in time for Shepard to murder them all.  It’s like ending Pinocchio with Geppetto stuffing him into a wood chipper.

Then there’s the (blue) option to ASSUME DIRECT CONTROL of the Reapers.  This scenario requires us to ignore that (at least if you were a paragon) you just spent the entire previous game arguing with the Illusive Man that using the Reapers’ tactics of subjugation against them was morally abhorrent.  Shepard says outright that he will not sacrifice his soul for victory.  In fact, in the scene literally just prior to this we explained to the Illusive Man that attempting to control the Reapers is evil and insane and doomed to failure.  So persuasive was Shepard’s argument that the Illusive Man shot himself in the head to escape the horror of what he had become.  Now let’s just go ahead and try the same thing ourselves.  What could possibly go wrong?

The most horrific outcome of all is the synthesis (green) ending, which would have us accept that Shepard transforms the galaxy’s entire population against their will into man-machine hybrids, akin to the monstrous Reapers and their minions whom we just spent three games fighting.  You know, minions like Saren and the Illusive Man and the entire Prothean race who were turned into man-machine hybrids and thereby became slaves of the Reapers.  He does this based on the assurances of a mysterious entity who admits it is working with the Reapers and who hastily appeared out of nowhere just as Shepard arrived at the weapon that could potentially defeat them.  Sounds legit.

So, after stuffing the myriad choices we’ve made throughout the series into a blender and homogenizing them into a single “readiness” number, the defining gameplay mechanic of the series (the dialogue wheel) vanishes at the most crucial moment and this player-driven epic is reduced to three choices: genocide, becoming a monster that violates every ethical principle you’ve lived by, or raping the entire galaxy.

And then you die.

And then the game is deliberately obscure about how your choices impact not only the galaxy but, far more importantly, the characters whom you have come to love and who are the lifeblood of the game.

The identity of Mass Effect is not in its visual style or its gameplay, which has changed substantially over the course of the series.  It’s not even in its story, because there is no one story: every Shepard is different.  The defining vision of Mass Effect, without which it is nothing, is its unprecedented interactivity that allows you to shape your own story—and, this being a video game, significantly affect the outcome if you played well enough.

That’s what the last two games did, and it’s precisely what ME3’s ending failed to deliver

Interesting points, but definitely not perfect. The reason why Control becomes a plausible in the end because you really do have the power to control the Reapers, before it was just a dream (or a nightmare, depends how you look at it) but the Catalyst has given control over to you.

The reason why TIM shot himself in the head was not because he realised controlling the Reapers was a crap idea, rather he realised that the Reapers were invading his mind.

As for the Catalyst, people seem to just assume he is lying because he is linked with Reapers, which doesn't necessarily follow. We have no evidence to suggest that he is actually lying

This ties into what I've finally realized about the ending. The argument isn't really about logic, it's about what you value in the story.

What themes do you value? 

People who like the ending think that themes of sacrifice, loss of idealism, and the inevitable war between origanics and synthetics are more important than the themes of hope, free will, and strength through diversity.


What aspects of Shepard do you value?

People who like the ending value Shepard's ability to make sacrifices and kill things more than they value his ability to reason and reject the imposition of irrational authority.

The starkid shows up and we have no evidence of whether or not we should believe him... true. But he claims to be the person who is causing this, the person who is making the reapers destroy earth. If we do choose to believe him, we have every reason to hate and reject him.

Unless you don't actually care about Shepard's ability to think about things in this manner, and just want to kill or die dramatically. In that case, Shepard's sudden mute acceptance of the will of a monster doesn't matter to you, because you didn't value Shepard's intelligence and free will, you valued something else about him.

It's a battle over the nature of the universe. It's a fight for the soul of science fiction. Do you want the world to be a bleak and uncaring place where brooding men and women must dance on the puppet strings of monsters, sacrificing everything they care about in order to make a decision that can only be classified as "the least terrible one?" Or do you want to experience a world where there is loss and pain but also hope, where everyone can work together and reject the easy solutions handed to us by history's monsters?

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 03 mai 2012 - 06:06 .

[Leem_0001]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Leem_0001 wrote...
Well, for the sake of this discussion, lets just keep it to the choices presented at the end (and not get into the 'where was Joker going, how was his squad on board etc'). It's that if what you are saying is correct, and previous cycles somehow did get the control option into the mix, it should be explained a lot more because to get to that is a bit of a leap. A stretch.

Sorry, I'm not saying that they did. I'm saying it stands to reason, if you don't assume that Humans are bestest ever species to come out in the entire galaxy throughout all the Cycles.
The only thing that is show that Cerberus-like groups existed before. We have proof of at least 1 (in the Prothean cycle). 
There's no logical leap to assume that there were more before it - considering the there were countless cycles. Right?

Leem_0001 wrote... 
Nothing is stated in the game that Cerberus get anywhere near to that level of technology to be able to do that. And, as I said, the IM is indoctrinated. Why would the Reapers, who are controlling him, let him add this option in there? Same for previous cycles - if memory serves right, Javik says that the faction that wanted control, were indoctinated. So the same question, why would the reapers let those they control add technology that would enslave them?

Yes, TIM is indoctrinated. Or, rather, nearly so.
He becomes so towards the end. That doesn't make his entire quest for Control any less achievable.
We know, for a fact, that he achieved the ability to control people, Humans and maybe more than humans. We see it at the very begining on Mars. And we see it with the various experiment recordings both of Miranda's dad and of TIM himself.

Leem_0001 wrote... 
Then there is the thing about needing the catalyst to fire, but no one knows what the catalyst is or how it works. Therefore how was it incorporated into the design? That doesn't stack up because they would have needed to know about this catalyst, what it was and how it was used, to base a design around it.  

No one in THIS cycle knows what it is.
But in the previous cycles they figured it out, but never got close to connecting them.
Protheans were the closest, till humans actually did connect. This is more than implied in the various conversations and actual story flow.

Leem_0001 wrote... 
Then there is the issue of the Starchild and it's goals. It firmly believes that if synthetic life is allowed to progress then it will wipe out organics completely. Removing the players views on this, that is what the Catalyst believes to be true. So if this is the case, and his ultimate goal is to save, or preserve, organics, why does he allow the Destroy or Control ending? This goes against his goals.

Asked and answered. It does NOT allow those options - they are there.
Those options are NOT of it's design.

Quick one, on the last point, didn't you say earlier that the Synthesis ending WAS given to us be the Catalyst? Then surely that IS of its design?

I understand what you are saying that it stands to reason, but something of this magnitude needs to be put across better if it is the case. However I still do think it is a stretch regarding other cycles splinter groups adding these options. I have conisered it, honestly I am not just dismissing it out right, but from what I have seen no previous cycle got close enough to do it. It is not said outright, but implied that this is the only time that the Reapers were late for an invasion (due to Prothean intereference with the Keepers). So we have had more time than most cycles. And it is implied (especially in the first game) that the Protheans got further than any other cycle in halting the Reapers. If this is to be believed then we have to assume if anyone was able to put in this control option, it would be them. But the control faction were indoctrinated.

And it is also implied that TIM is indoctrinated for the majority of the game (as in the books he has been dealing with Reaper tech). So again the quesiton on why the Reapers would let him still keeps springing to mind. Again with the Prothean cycle, as Javik confirms the 'control' splinter faction was indoctrinated. I agree there may have been some kind of factions in the war against the reapers in previous cycles, but I stand by my belief that if a previous cycle did instigate this control element, then it should have been better explained.

I am all for storylines asking searching questions, but they should not be in relation to the logic, and so we can simply follow the narrative.

And yes the IM is able to control people, but that is much different than controlling a race of Reapers. If memory serves, in Miranda's dads labrotory it showed they were only able to control husks for a short amount of time. So to get to the point of controlling the Reaper fleet by the end is surely just too much?

And with regards to the Catalyst, I never took from any conversations that anyone figured it out. In fact the Prothean AI simply states that there is something behind the Reapers, but he did not know what. Added to that the fact that Starchild says no other organic has seen him (indirectly says that) then we have to assume no other cycle knew of him, so could not include him as a part of their weapon.

Modifié par Leem_0001, 03 mai 2012 - 06:13 .

[tMc Tallgeese]

You have a point CulturalGeekGirl, though I do not find Shepard's ability to sacrifice and kill things to be what I valued most. I did like the end of the game and felt it was a good end to his/her arc in the trilogy.

Something that I felt didn't come across in the series as a whole is the fact that the Reapers are the ultimate enemy. They cannot be reasoned, bargained, pleaded with or deterred from their purpose. The Starchild is nothing more than the representation of that unshakable purpose for Shepard to interact with. His explanation is an argument based on the idea that the only way to save organics is to save them from themselves. He fulfills this by Reaping the most technologically and genetically evolved species and preserving their legacy in Reaper form to allow the galaxy to remain in balance. To them it is not genocide because they're still "alive", but on a different plane of existence. His choice to allow Shepard to determine the fate of the galaxy was the realization that regardless of Shepard's choice, he would no longer be able to hold off future cycles from possibly doing what happened in this one.

What I valued most, to get back on topic, was Shepard's ability to overcome loss, hardship, bitter feuds, personal feelings, and remain his/herself. Shepard represents a great tragic hero because no one asked them to do this, but they took up the banner to save the galaxy and never let themselves be stopped. In a way, I admire Shepard because they had the same level of purpose as the Reapers and that is admirable.

Modifié par tMc Tallgeese, 03 mai 2012 - 06:31 .

[CapnManx]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...


This ties into what I've finally realized about the ending. The argument isn't really about logic, it's about what you value in the story.

What themes do you value? 

People who like the ending think that themes of sacrifice, loss of idealism, and the inevitable war between origanics and synthetics are more important than the themes of hope, free will, and strength through diversity.


What aspects of Shepard do you value?

People who like the ending value Shepard's ability to make sacrifices and kill things more than they value his ability to reason and reject the imposition of irrational authority.

The starkid shows up and we have no evidence of whether or not we should believe him... true. But he claims to be the person who is causing this, the person who is making the reapers destroy earth. If we do choose to believe him, we have every reason to hate and reject him.

Unless you don't actually care about Shepard's ability to think about things in this manner, and just want to kill or die dramatically. In that case, Shepard's sudden mute acceptance of the will of a monster doesn't matter to you, because you didn't value Shepard's intelligence and free will, you valued something else about him.

Turn that on its head.  It's the folks that don't like the ending who seem to value Shepard's ability to kill things; since they are typically the ones who wish for a conventional military victory.

Still, you're almost right; but it's more about Shepard's sense of duty.  Shepard isn't some fantasy warrior bound by nothing beyond his or her own code; Shepard is a soldier of the Alliance, and is sworn to protect the citizens of the Alliance.

Try and look at the 'Destroy' ending from that perspective for a moment.  Sure, Shepard might not want the Geth to get wiped out, but he/she doesn't actually have a duty to protect them.  In addition, as a Spectre, Shepard has a responsibility to look out for the Council races; but as the Geth are not a Council race, being a Spectre doesn't do anything to change that.

Being duty bound to do something often means doing stuff you wouldn't normally do; killing is a terrible thing, but that is what soldiers do when necessary.  If necessary, they will kill lots of people.  Not because they enjoy it, or are genocidal maniacs, but because that is what duty requires of them.

For every second Shepard delays, people are dying.  Fighting a conventional war would see billions (or even trillions maybe) harvested, because it would take so long to drive them off every occupied world.  The question of whether the military could beat them is almost irrelevant; they would lose either way, because the job of the military is to protect the civilians who were getting slaughtered in countless numbers.

So, Shepard boards the Citadel, looking for a way to destroy the Reapers, and he/she finds one. It comes at a price; but Shepard has that duty.

Just as many people who hate the ending can't understand how anyone would support it, I can't understand how anyone would believe that Shepard would flinch from his/her duty if it meant getting blood on his/her hands.  I can't imagine anything more out of character.

[Ariq]

If the Catalyst - Citadel - Crucible combination was intended to destroy the Reapers as its primary function, and Control is an ancillary function, explain this:

Why is Destroy the option that requires Shepard to shoot part of the Crucible causing an internal chain reaction that results in an explosion? If I start shooting my computer's power supply, sparks will fly and things will happen, but they will hardly be the things my computer is designed to do. In all those cycles, no one thought of putting in an activation switch?

Modifié par Ariq, 03 mai 2012 - 06:38 .

[Johcande XX]

Argh, it sucks having to sleep and wake up realizing you missed all this good arguing.

[CmnDwnWrkn]

The endings only make sense as metaphors.

[humes spork]

Cypher_CS wrote...

That's natural evolution. An indirect change.
What we're talking about is how if once all diseases were a tool of Natural Selection, today with various drugs and augmentations (Dick Cheney, for example), we fool evolution. Yet it still works.

Any rate, that's not the discussion here.

And my point is you're committing an error by framing the very conversation that narrowly. We "fool" evolution with regularity, our entire civilization is predicated upon "fooling" evolution, we've been "fooling" evolution for at least eleven thousand years and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

Domestication is artificial selection.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

CapnManx wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...


This ties into what I've finally realized about the ending. The argument isn't really about logic, it's about what you value in the story.

What themes do you value? 

People who like the ending think that themes of sacrifice, loss of idealism, and the inevitable war between origanics and synthetics are more important than the themes of hope, free will, and strength through diversity.


What aspects of Shepard do you value?

People who like the ending value Shepard's ability to make sacrifices and kill things more than they value his ability to reason and reject the imposition of irrational authority.

The starkid shows up and we have no evidence of whether or not we should believe him... true. But he claims to be the person who is causing this, the person who is making the reapers destroy earth. If we do choose to believe him, we have every reason to hate and reject him.

Unless you don't actually care about Shepard's ability to think about things in this manner, and just want to kill or die dramatically. In that case, Shepard's sudden mute acceptance of the will of a monster doesn't matter to you, because you didn't value Shepard's intelligence and free will, you valued something else about him.

Turn that on its head.  It's the folks that don't like the ending who seem to value Shepard's ability to kill things; since they are typically the ones who wish for a conventional military victory.

Still, you're almost right; but it's more about Shepard's sense of duty.  Shepard isn't some fantasy warrior bound by nothing beyond his or her own code; Shepard is a soldier of the Alliance, and is sworn to protect the citizens of the Alliance.

Try and look at the 'Destroy' ending from that perspective for a moment.  Sure, Shepard might not want the Geth to get wiped out, but he/she doesn't actually have a duty to protect them.  In addition, as a Spectre, Shepard has a responsibility to look out for the Council races; but as the Geth are not a Council race, being a Spectre doesn't do anything to change that.

Being duty bound to do something often means doing stuff you wouldn't normally do; killing is a terrible thing, but that is what soldiers do when necessary.  If necessary, they will kill lots of people.  Not because they enjoy it, or are genocidal maniacs, but because that is what duty requires of them.

For every second Shepard delays, people are dying.  Fighting a conventional war would see billions (or even trillions maybe) harvested, because it would take so long to drive them off every occupied world.  The question of whether the military could beat them is almost irrelevant; they would lose either way, because the job of the military is to protect the civilians who were getting slaughtered in countless numbers.

So, Shepard boards the Citadel, looking for a way to destroy the Reapers, and he/she finds one. It comes at a price; but Shepard has that duty.

Just as many people who hate the ending can't understand how anyone would support it, I can't understand how anyone would believe that Shepard would flinch from his/her duty if it meant getting blood on his/her hands.  I can't imagine anything more out of character.

Right. So you value shepard's commitment to duty more than you value his desire not to commit genocide. You think that duty justifies genocide. I get that. 

I simply disagree. I don't think that commitment to one's duty justifies genocide. You do.

We can never agree.

Bioware created an ending that works for anyone who thinks that genocide is acceptable, and that does not work for a large number of people who think that genocide is always unacceptable. These are not differences in opinion that can ever be settled.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 03 mai 2012 - 06:50 .

[Johcande XX]

I've read somewhere in this thread an argument that synthesis either destroys organic live or evolves it. Since there is a difference between natural gradual evolution and instant radical evolution, the answer to synthesis destroying/evolving organic life is BOTH, your just arguing semantics, they mean the same thing in this situation.

[SubAstris]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

ArchLord James wrote...

Remain Civil, refrain from name calling or generalizing, and simply address the blatantly obvious errors that Strange Aeons pointed out in this post on another thread. Defend the endings if you dare! Consider this a debate competition. This guy just absolutely nailed what is wrong with the endings, and everyone who hates the endings should unify behind these reasons why the endings are terrible, not the weak "our choices dont matter" line.

Strange Aeons Wrote:

I've posted this before, but here is my take:

What’s truly baffling about the ending is that each variation manages to disregard completely the specific lessons of the previous events in its own unique way.
 
The explanation of the Reapers and the destroy (red) ending in particular might resonate if there were actually some ongoing tension about the latent danger of synthetics…except that everything we saw in the last two games teaches us exactly the opposite.  I'm not talking about what people imagine might, maybe, possibly could happen sometime in the future; I'm talking about what the game actually shows us.  They go to great lengths to establish that synthetics are alive and capable of growth and selflessness and friendship and individuality and love just in time for Shepard to murder them all.  It’s like ending Pinocchio with Geppetto stuffing him into a wood chipper.

Then there’s the (blue) option to ASSUME DIRECT CONTROL of the Reapers.  This scenario requires us to ignore that (at least if you were a paragon) you just spent the entire previous game arguing with the Illusive Man that using the Reapers’ tactics of subjugation against them was morally abhorrent.  Shepard says outright that he will not sacrifice his soul for victory.  In fact, in the scene literally just prior to this we explained to the Illusive Man that attempting to control the Reapers is evil and insane and doomed to failure.  So persuasive was Shepard’s argument that the Illusive Man shot himself in the head to escape the horror of what he had become.  Now let’s just go ahead and try the same thing ourselves.  What could possibly go wrong?

The most horrific outcome of all is the synthesis (green) ending, which would have us accept that Shepard transforms the galaxy’s entire population against their will into man-machine hybrids, akin to the monstrous Reapers and their minions whom we just spent three games fighting.  You know, minions like Saren and the Illusive Man and the entire Prothean race who were turned into man-machine hybrids and thereby became slaves of the Reapers.  He does this based on the assurances of a mysterious entity who admits it is working with the Reapers and who hastily appeared out of nowhere just as Shepard arrived at the weapon that could potentially defeat them.  Sounds legit.

So, after stuffing the myriad choices we’ve made throughout the series into a blender and homogenizing them into a single “readiness” number, the defining gameplay mechanic of the series (the dialogue wheel) vanishes at the most crucial moment and this player-driven epic is reduced to three choices: genocide, becoming a monster that violates every ethical principle you’ve lived by, or raping the entire galaxy.

And then you die.

And then the game is deliberately obscure about how your choices impact not only the galaxy but, far more importantly, the characters whom you have come to love and who are the lifeblood of the game.

The identity of Mass Effect is not in its visual style or its gameplay, which has changed substantially over the course of the series.  It’s not even in its story, because there is no one story: every Shepard is different.  The defining vision of Mass Effect, without which it is nothing, is its unprecedented interactivity that allows you to shape your own story—and, this being a video game, significantly affect the outcome if you played well enough.

That’s what the last two games did, and it’s precisely what ME3’s ending failed to deliver

Interesting points, but definitely not perfect. The reason why Control becomes a plausible in the end because you really do have the power to control the Reapers, before it was just a dream (or a nightmare, depends how you look at it) but the Catalyst has given control over to you.

The reason why TIM shot himself in the head was not because he realised controlling the Reapers was a crap idea, rather he realised that the Reapers were invading his mind.

As for the Catalyst, people seem to just assume he is lying because he is linked with Reapers, which doesn't necessarily follow. We have no evidence to suggest that he is actually lying

This ties into what I've finally realized about the ending. The argument isn't really about logic, it's about what you value in the story.

What themes do you value? 

People who like the ending think that themes of sacrifice, loss of idealism, and the inevitable war between origanics and synthetics are more important than the themes of hope, free will, and strength through diversity.


What aspects of Shepard do you value?

People who like the ending value Shepard's ability to make sacrifices and kill things more than they value his ability to reason and reject the imposition of irrational authority.

The starkid shows up and we have no evidence of whether or not we should believe him... true. But he claims to be the person who is causing this, the person who is making the reapers destroy earth. If we do choose to believe him, we have every reason to hate and reject him.

Unless you don't actually care about Shepard's ability to think about things in this manner, and just want to kill or die dramatically. In that case, Shepard's sudden mute acceptance of the will of a monster doesn't matter to you, because you didn't value Shepard's intelligence and free will, you valued something else about him.

It's a battle over the nature of the universe. It's a fight for the soul of science fiction. Do you want the world to be a bleak and uncaring place where brooding men and women must dance on the puppet strings of monsters, sacrificing everything they care about in order to make a decision that can only be classified as "the least terrible one?" Or do you want to experience a world where there is loss and pain but also hope, where everyone can work together and reject the easy solutions handed to us by history's monsters?

Well, ultimately it is about logic, that's the only way we can know if the endings are good or not. Good endings wrap up the themes of the narrative, which as you point out are things like hope, free will and strength through diversity. The inevitable struggle between organics and synthetics on the other hand has never been a part of ME.

[CapnManx]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...



Right. So you value shepard's commitment to duty more than you value his desire not to commit genocide. You think that duty justifies genocide. I get that. 

I simply disagree. I don't think that commitment to one's duty justifies genocide. You do.

We can never agree.

Bioware created an ending that works for anyone who thinks that genocide is acceptable, and that does not work for a large number of people who think that genocide is always unacceptable. These are not differences in opinion that can ever be settled.

No?

And if you could have killed every Reaper at the push of a button without having to scarifice the Geth?  That would still be genocide (in fact, if you take some of the implications about the Reapers literally, killing just one of them is genocide).  It would just be genocide of the bad guys.

[Johcande XX]

SubAstris wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

ArchLord James wrote...

Remain Civil, refrain from name calling or generalizing, and simply address the blatantly obvious errors that Strange Aeons pointed out in this post on another thread. Defend the endings if you dare! Consider this a debate competition. This guy just absolutely nailed what is wrong with the endings, and everyone who hates the endings should unify behind these reasons why the endings are terrible, not the weak "our choices dont matter" line.

Strange Aeons Wrote:

I've posted this before, but here is my take:

What’s truly baffling about the ending is that each variation manages to disregard completely the specific lessons of the previous events in its own unique way.
 
The explanation of the Reapers and the destroy (red) ending in particular might resonate if there were actually some ongoing tension about the latent danger of synthetics…except that everything we saw in the last two games teaches us exactly the opposite.  I'm not talking about what people imagine might, maybe, possibly could happen sometime in the future; I'm talking about what the game actually shows us.  They go to great lengths to establish that synthetics are alive and capable of growth and selflessness and friendship and individuality and love just in time for Shepard to murder them all.  It’s like ending Pinocchio with Geppetto stuffing him into a wood chipper.

Then there’s the (blue) option to ASSUME DIRECT CONTROL of the Reapers.  This scenario requires us to ignore that (at least if you were a paragon) you just spent the entire previous game arguing with the Illusive Man that using the Reapers’ tactics of subjugation against them was morally abhorrent.  Shepard says outright that he will not sacrifice his soul for victory.  In fact, in the scene literally just prior to this we explained to the Illusive Man that attempting to control the Reapers is evil and insane and doomed to failure.  So persuasive was Shepard’s argument that the Illusive Man shot himself in the head to escape the horror of what he had become.  Now let’s just go ahead and try the same thing ourselves.  What could possibly go wrong?

The most horrific outcome of all is the synthesis (green) ending, which would have us accept that Shepard transforms the galaxy’s entire population against their will into man-machine hybrids, akin to the monstrous Reapers and their minions whom we just spent three games fighting.  You know, minions like Saren and the Illusive Man and the entire Prothean race who were turned into man-machine hybrids and thereby became slaves of the Reapers.  He does this based on the assurances of a mysterious entity who admits it is working with the Reapers and who hastily appeared out of nowhere just as Shepard arrived at the weapon that could potentially defeat them.  Sounds legit.

So, after stuffing the myriad choices we’ve made throughout the series into a blender and homogenizing them into a single “readiness” number, the defining gameplay mechanic of the series (the dialogue wheel) vanishes at the most crucial moment and this player-driven epic is reduced to three choices: genocide, becoming a monster that violates every ethical principle you’ve lived by, or raping the entire galaxy.

And then you die.

And then the game is deliberately obscure about how your choices impact not only the galaxy but, far more importantly, the characters whom you have come to love and who are the lifeblood of the game.

The identity of Mass Effect is not in its visual style or its gameplay, which has changed substantially over the course of the series.  It’s not even in its story, because there is no one story: every Shepard is different.  The defining vision of Mass Effect, without which it is nothing, is its unprecedented interactivity that allows you to shape your own story—and, this being a video game, significantly affect the outcome if you played well enough.

That’s what the last two games did, and it’s precisely what ME3’s ending failed to deliver

Interesting points, but definitely not perfect. The reason why Control becomes a plausible in the end because you really do have the power to control the Reapers, before it was just a dream (or a nightmare, depends how you look at it) but the Catalyst has given control over to you.

The reason why TIM shot himself in the head was not because he realised controlling the Reapers was a crap idea, rather he realised that the Reapers were invading his mind.

As for the Catalyst, people seem to just assume he is lying because he is linked with Reapers, which doesn't necessarily follow. We have no evidence to suggest that he is actually lying

This ties into what I've finally realized about the ending. The argument isn't really about logic, it's about what you value in the story.

What themes do you value? 

People who like the ending think that themes of sacrifice, loss of idealism, and the inevitable war between origanics and synthetics are more important than the themes of hope, free will, and strength through diversity.


What aspects of Shepard do you value?

People who like the ending value Shepard's ability to make sacrifices and kill things more than they value his ability to reason and reject the imposition of irrational authority.

The starkid shows up and we have no evidence of whether or not we should believe him... true. But he claims to be the person who is causing this, the person who is making the reapers destroy earth. If we do choose to believe him, we have every reason to hate and reject him.

Unless you don't actually care about Shepard's ability to think about things in this manner, and just want to kill or die dramatically. In that case, Shepard's sudden mute acceptance of the will of a monster doesn't matter to you, because you didn't value Shepard's intelligence and free will, you valued something else about him.

It's a battle over the nature of the universe. It's a fight for the soul of science fiction. Do you want the world to be a bleak and uncaring place where brooding men and women must dance on the puppet strings of monsters, sacrificing everything they care about in order to make a decision that can only be classified as "the least terrible one?" Or do you want to experience a world where there is loss and pain but also hope, where everyone can work together and reject the easy solutions handed to us by history's monsters?

Well, ultimately it is about logic, that's the only way we can know if the endings are good or not. Good endings wrap up the themes of the narrative, which as you point out are things like hope, free will and strength through diversity. The inevitable struggle between organics and synthetics on the other hand has never been a part of ME.

Agree to a point. 

Organic v. Synthetic WAS a theme in ME1; however, once the writers expanded on synthetic races in ME2, it is retroactively changed from THEME to CONFLICT.  Even if YOUR Shepard hated synthetics, and went against them every chance he/she got, there is still enough evidence through the course of the game that shows the fallacy in that initial theme.

/Capps used as emphasis, not anger or exasperation

[CulturalGeekGirl]

CapnManx wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...



Right. So you value shepard's commitment to duty more than you value his desire not to commit genocide. You think that duty justifies genocide. I get that. 

I simply disagree. I don't think that commitment to one's duty justifies genocide. You do.

We can never agree.

Bioware created an ending that works for anyone who thinks that genocide is acceptable, and that does not work for a large number of people who think that genocide is always unacceptable. These are not differences in opinion that can ever be settled.

No?

And if you could have killed every Reaper at the push of a button without having to scarifice the Geth?  That would still be genocide (in fact, if you take some of the implications about the Reapers literally, killing just one of them is genocide).  It would just be genocide of the bad guys.

No to what?

You just said that the idea that Shepard would relent from his duty is abhorent to you, but the idea of genociding the geth does not cause you as much mental distress as the idea that he would shirk his duty.

Thus not betraying your duty is more important than not committing genocide to you.

I don't understand how I misinterpreted you. I'm not even saying you're wrong... I'm saying that we have different priorities, and people who share your priorities are more likely to like the ending, while people who share mine are more likely to dislike it.

As for destroying the Reapers in battle being the same as committing genocide, I disagree.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 03 mai 2012 - 07:04 .

[Johcande XX]

CapnManx wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...



Right. So you value shepard's commitment to duty more than you value his desire not to commit genocide. You think that duty justifies genocide. I get that. 

I simply disagree. I don't think that commitment to one's duty justifies genocide. You do.

We can never agree.

Bioware created an ending that works for anyone who thinks that genocide is acceptable, and that does not work for a large number of people who think that genocide is always unacceptable. These are not differences in opinion that can ever be settled.

No?

And if you could have killed every Reaper at the push of a button without having to scarifice the Geth?  That would still be genocide (in fact, if you take some of the implications about the Reapers literally, killing just one of them is genocide).  It would just be genocide of the bad guys.

Murder is acceptable in self-defense.  Genocide, (as an extension of mass murder) is acceptable in self-defense, in this completely unrealistic situation, in which killing your would be attacker kills there entire species. 

Destroy option IS ok as a means to stopping the reapers, I just feel that the problem lies in the collateral damage of all synthetic life.  And I'm not ok with that.