449 réponses à ce sujet

[JShepppp]

I'm not a pro-ender by any means, but I do believe the ending gets a lot of unnecessary flak. I'll try to address the points here, even under the idea that I may be attacked for my opinion (the audacity! lol).

A lot of people I think misunderstand the Catalyst. It's trying to prevent a technological singularity, where AIs will basically become so advanced that galactic power will switch to them and organics will forever after be at their mercy. It views this change in power to be too dangerous because it has seen synthetic/organic war happen. 

A lot of people disagree with the above. I started a thread about it a while ago and got a lot of hate messages for it.

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.

(Intro stuff, meat of it is below) 
 

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.

On the contrary, we simply are shown that synthetics can be at both war and peace with organics. The Geth/Quarian and Joker/EDI situations do not disprove the Catalyst's assertion that war will inevitably occur. Taking the future out of the equation is impossible with the Catalyst's logic. Using the past to try to predict the future is fine. The game shows us that both war and peace are options. Neither is impossible. Given enough time, each will occur.

"Humanizing" the synthetics is there to show how far they've advanced from simple computers. The advancement of synthetics is critical to the Catalyst, and the game shows this adequately.

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?

Then don't choose the option. Remember, given the constraints that the Reaper dilemma opposes on the galaxy, ALL outcomes are the "least worst" outcomes. The paragon option is the only one that saves everyone while retaining their prior individuality, including the Reapers. Legion says the Reapers consist of 1 billion organic minds, implying organics still somehow "exist" in the Reapers (even if in a horrible, demented form or something). Killing the Reapers can also be seen as one of the largest genocides because Shepard is destroying the remnants of tens of thousands of races without seeing if there is a chance to give them "peace" in a sense (freedom). 

This is a difficult and abhorrent concept to even discuss and generates a lot of hate on BSN (at least when I mention it). Who has the power to say and/or condemn the last vestiges of what must've been once-great races to absolute death? Do we know what they'd prefer? Does that matter? Are they too long gone in "Reaper" existence to "really see" the "truth", aka "our" truth? 

Paragon is Control because it is the one that most directly avoids imposing your moral code on others. 

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.

Again, then don't pick it. Trusting or not trusting the Catalyst is tricky because if you don't trust it, it doesn't make sense to trust one statement and not trust others. Everything it says gets thrown into doubt, meaning none of the options would work and it's just sadistically looking at Shepard's demise. 

The Catalyst has to be trusted because Shepard and the galaxy have nothing else left besides harvestation at this point.

Synthesis is the most difficult to understand. It eliminates the problem of the singularity, meaning organics will never ever be inferior to synthetics in the future. That is the main thing the Catalyst is worried about. Shepard doesn't have to be worried about it, but Shepard can be.

We see hints throughout the game of a technological singularity and the unknown that lies beyond it. The Catalyst is afraid of what the unknown will imply given the inevitable shift in galactic power towards synthetics at an unprecedented and forever increasing degree. If Shepard too is afraid, then Synthesis becomes the best option to combat the singularity.

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.

Or you could die with honor. The Crucible is basically where you're picking the worst of the evils. The game gives you the choice to not activate the Crucible. All you get is a lazy game over screen that it was destroyed if you wait to long, but it amounts to the same thing if in a pure poetic sense.

And then you die.

This has been a topic of much contention and debate. I personally view this as irrelevant given the scale of conflict so have nothing to personally say but can understand how it might be upsetting.

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.

Yes. I agree.

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

Within Bioware's constraints and the story's constraints. It's an M-rated war story where people get turned into genetic mush, have their minds ripped from their bodies to form giant synthetic/organic hybrids, and have cycles of genocide going back approx a billion years. 

Your choices manifest themselves in how you see your characters throughout the game. The lack of an epilogue is a weakness.

But the Crucible itself is not. There are no other options besides conventional victory, which the story has gone through great pains to show as unfeasible. 

[Ieldra]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
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.

I can only quote Javik: "War does not always give you a choice."

That's what this is about. There is no morally perfect solution, and I'm quite glad of that. I'm sick of stories where "doing the right thing" always works as solution, because well, that's not how things work. "There is always another way" is naive.

As for ME3's ending, why not choose Control? No genocide here.

[Vox Draco]

kmol wrote...
Synthesis
On one hand you could make the assumption that you make a "minor" alteration with the intention of preserving galaxy life.
On the other hand you could make the assumption that you make such a major alteration that life as we know it is redundant.
No matter, we as players are not given enough information to claim that either is the correct statement, which perhaps is what "ticks" most people off.

Its a gamble, like playing a game of dice, where you don't really know what the stakes are,
but you throw the dice anyhow, they hit the table... and thats the end of the game.

Well, you know what is at stake...the entire galaxy, the life and existence of your friends, allies, loved-ones and the way of life and self-dtermination you fought for all the time...

And you know what? This game is even worse because the dice are in fact handed to you by the catalyst...

This is really one big problem I have with the choices and the discussion about it. Everything concerning their possible outcome is based on nothing else than speculation. For good or for bad...

But what I simply cannot understand is why a lot of people actually think it must definatly turn out good to choose synthesis...because the catalyst...tells us what ecxactly about it? Yes, nothing! We know nothing about how it will really turn out, utopian (as we humans would understand it!) or huskified?
 
It is up to the player to assume the worst or best, and the same for control...the Reapers will obey Shepard, the kiddy says, and it might be true, or not...some lines of the catalyst should make you doubt it will turn out the way the positive-minded think about it.. And red has the same issues...

Now if many people complain that, for instance if there would be a "realW ending still to come (IT and stuff), they have gotten an incomplete game all I can say: The game already HAS no real end, no real conclusion...

It simply ends. And the rest is up to the player to make up in their minds. If this is okay for some, alright. But don't act all surprised if so many people complain about the ending, and come up with interpretations like IT. After all, this is what it seems all about. Bioware was too artistic or lazy to end the story themselves, and left it to the players to do their job...

Another way to save ressources, I guess...

Modifié par Vox Draco, 03 mai 2012 - 07:23 .

[boardnfool86]

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

1. DESTROY - and yet people still pick it...
2. CONTROL - yep, thats the twist, save the Geth and EDI by CONTROLLING the Reapers
3. SYNTHESIS - Synthesis via the Crucible is so incredibly different than what the Reapers were doing that people who keep saying they are the same thing blow my mind. How is erasing the perceived difference between organic and synthetic the same as wiping out organic life, harvesting some of it into an orange goo that you pump into giant death machines? Its not. If you can't see that, I am sorry, dont choose synthesis.

You're argument's theis is also invalid, ME3 ends with more possibility than ME1 or ME2. In ME1 you can effect some side plots, save the council or let them die, and choose humanities representative on the Council. But in the end, you ACHIEVE the same thing no matter what. Defeat Saren, Soveriegn, and the Geth through the EXACT same means. Same goes for ME2, you may lose squad members (you may die but then you cant play 3 so thats mute) but in the end you stop the collectors, and you can either save or destroy the base. In ME3, as with the first two, you have a linear goal, find the Catalyst so you can fire the Crucible. ME3 keeping in line with the "choices" theme lets you fire it THREE different ways resulting in MASSIVE differences for the future of the galaxy. That may be lost due to the suddenly sparse amount of exposition, but its still true.

The only TRUE problem with the ending is that its emotionally unsatisfying for many players, and thats BW's fault, and you can nitpick away, but thats the way of it. You can find fault with anything, I could nitpick Gladiator and Braveheart, both won Best Picture, but in the end we all walked away emotionally satisfied. ME3 misses the mark because in a series that is typically overwhelming in exposition, the ending is surprisingly lacking.

That said, I get it, I liked it... hopefully the DLC puts some more people at ease... but the sad truth is at this point there is little BW can do to save the perception of the series in the hearts and minds of many of its fans.

Maybe they re-release it years from now as a directors cut - who knows. Personally ME is my favorite experience in gaming in my 26 years and the only reason I still play VGs (Skyrim didnt hurt that cause either)

EDIT: fixed some typos

Modifié par boardnfool86, 03 mai 2012 - 07:37 .

[Richard 060]

JShepppp wrote...

I'm not a pro-ender by any means, but I do believe the ending gets a lot of unnecessary flak. I'll try to address the points here, even under the idea that I may be attacked for my opinion (the audacity! lol).

A lot of people I think misunderstand the Catalyst. It's trying to prevent a technological singularity, where AIs will basically become so advanced that galactic power will switch to them and organics will forever after be at their mercy. It views this change in power to be too dangerous because it has seen synthetic/organic war happen. 

The problem with that idea is that the whole 'technological singularity' angle is your own knowledge, that you've applied to make sense of the Catalyst. It's not something that's mentioned in the actual game itself - all we get is the assumption that 'synthetics will eventually destroy all organic life'. That's it - any further justification is something external that you've applied.

The larger issue with this is akin to when filmmakers tell a story that doesn't really work as a complete piece, and excuse it by saying that crucial plot info is in the deleted scenes or tie-in comicbook. Which is a total crock - if the theatrical release, the so-called 'finished product' that most people will experience in that format, only works when supplemented by additional material, that most folks won't have experienced, then you've failed as a storyteller.

The same applies to using either real-world hypotheses (technological singularity) or fictional concepts ('indoctrination theory') to 'fill in the blanks' for Mass Effect 3's ending - we all paid money to experience a complete game with a complete story, not 'most of a game' that we can then 'finish' with whatever 'head-canon' suits us best - even if it's well-reasoned, scientifically relevant 'head-canon'.

Modifié par Richard 060, 03 mai 2012 - 07:38 .

[boardnfool86]

JShepppp wrote...

I'm not a pro-ender by any means, but I do believe the ending gets a lot of unnecessary flak. I'll try to address the points here, even under the idea that I may be attacked for my opinion (the audacity! lol).

Good for you, I get that people don't like it - but the criticism has exceeded the problems. When there is a person you truly hate, even when that person still does something good (usually) it will still bother you because you just flat out hate that person.

Best analogy I can draw.

Kudos JShepppp, our tastes may disagree but I respect your level headedness above all else.

[savionen]

Richard 060 wrote...

JShepppp wrote...

I'm not a pro-ender by any means, but I do believe the ending gets a lot of unnecessary flak. I'll try to address the points here, even under the idea that I may be attacked for my opinion (the audacity! lol).

A lot of people I think misunderstand the Catalyst. It's trying to prevent a technological singularity, where AIs will basically become so advanced that galactic power will switch to them and organics will forever after be at their mercy. It views this change in power to be too dangerous because it has seen synthetic/organic war happen. 

The problem with that idea is that the whole 'technological singularity' angle is your own knowledge, that you've applied to make sense of the Catalyst. It's not something that's mentioned in the actual game itself - all we get is the assumption that 'synthetics will eventually destroy all organic life'. That's it - any further justification is something external that you've applied.

The larger issue with this is akin to when filmmakers tell a story that doesn't really work as a complete piece, and excuse it by saying that crucial plot info is in the deleted scenes or tie-in comicbook. Which is a total crock - if the theatrical release, the so-called 'finished product' that most people will experience in that format, only works when supplemented by additional material, that most folks won't have experienced, then you've failed as a storyteller.

The same applies to using either real-world hypotheses (technological singularity) or fictional concepts ('indoctrination theory') to 'fill in the blanks' for Mass Effect 3's ending - we all paid money to experience a complete game with a complete story, not 'most of a game' that we can then 'finish' with whatever 'head-canon' suits us best - even if it's well-reasoned, scientifically relevant 'head-canon'.

I agree with this. Different stories have different takes on the same issues. One sci-fi story will say that robots are a huge problem, another will show that humans and robots can live together perfectly fine, Mass Effect has its own world and environment. It has its own responsibility for telling us what is acceptable or unacceptable within the confines of the story. If you play the trilogy to completion, a lot of elements in the story seem to show that organics and synthetics can live together peacefully, or at least, with the same conflicts that organics already have (aside from what the Catalyst says).

If Bioware wanted to show that you truly can't trust synthetics, they needed to show that. EDI should have betrayed Shepard or the Geth should have never backed down regardless of your decisions on Rannoch, etc. The Catalyst saying that synthetics will eventually destroy organics isn't enough evidence for most people, especially when you may have personally witnessed 2 or 3 major events that conflict with this.

Modifié par savionen, 03 mai 2012 - 07:49 .

[Spectre_Shepard]

thefallen2far wrote...

To the OP:

Janeaba- wrote...

Velocithon wrote...

boom baby

[N0-Future]

Well said mate.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Ieldra2 wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
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.

I can only quote Javik: "War does not always give you a choice."

That's what this is about. There is no morally perfect solution, and I'm quite glad of that. I'm sick of stories where "doing the right thing" always works as solution, because well, that's not how things work. "There is always another way" is naive.

As for ME3's ending, why not choose Control? No genocide here.

This ties into my theory about theme and aesthetic that I've been repeating 'til I'm blue in the face.

You like the current idea of a grimdark world where nobody makes it out with their  morals intact, where we always must make the least horrible decision but sacrifice and loss and monstrosity are a given, and there are no true heroes.

That's fine. That's your aesthetic. The problem is a lot of people don't feel that this was sold as the premise of Mass Effect from the beginning.

If it'd said on the box of ME1 "A Grimdark saga where there is nothing but war and all heroes lose their innocence" I wouldn't have bought the game. I would have avoided it, like I avoid Gears of War. Or, if I had bought it, I would have expected this. I mean, I know Warhammer. I know universes where there is no hope, where all heroes will eventually be corrupt. I've played and lived in those universe for years, I know how to work within them. All I ask is that the tone of the universe not change in the last five minutes of a story.

There's a reason that, in grimdark universes, I usually choose to be an Ork or a sociopath. In a grimdark future where there is only War, you might as well be the race where Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh is their favorite word. In a world where genocide is just another bad choice you have to make on a given day, I might as well roleplay Crow, my cheerful sociopath who lives for sex and violence and power.

But that's not the story Mass Effect was telling. It was an abrupt tonal shift tacked on in the end. You're someone who doesn't mind that tonal shift because you like the trendy grimdark stuff, and that's fine. You're welcome to it.

I just wish this had been pitched as a grim and gritty universe with a cliche sacrificial messianic loss-of-innocence ending tacked on from the start, rather than providing messages of hope and understanding throughout. It's thematically inconsistent and I'm tired of this trend dominating modern science fiction, which used to have a much wider spectrum of tone.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 03 mai 2012 - 08:11 .

[Johcande XX]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
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.

I can only quote Javik: "War does not always give you a choice."

That's what this is about. There is no morally perfect solution, and I'm quite glad of that. I'm sick of stories where "doing the right thing" always works as solution, because well, that's not how things work. "There is always another way" is naive.

As for ME3's ending, why not choose Control? No genocide here.

This ties into my theory about theme and aesthetic that I've been repeating 'til I'm blue in the face.

You like the current idea of a grimdark world where nobody makes it out with their  morals intact, where we always must make the least horrible decision but sacrifice and loss and monstrosity are a given, and there are no true heroes.

That's fine. That's your aesthetic. The problem is a lot of people don't feel that this was sold as the premise of Mass Effect from the beginning.

If it'd said on the box of ME1 "A Grimdark saga where there is nothing but war and all heroes lose their innocence" I wouldn't have bought the game. I would have avoided it, like I avoid Gears of War. Or, if I had bought it, I would have expected this. I mean, I know Warhammer. I know universes where there is no hope, where all heroes will eventually be corrupt. I've played and lived in those universe for years, I know how to work within them. All I ask is that the tone of the universe not change in the last five minutes of a story.

There's a reason that, in grimdark universes, I usually choose to be an Ork or a sociopath. In a grimdark future where there is only War, you might as well be the race where Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh is their favorite word. In a world where genocide is just another bad choice you have to make on a given day, I might as well roleplay Crow, my cheerful sociopath who lives for sex and violence and power.

But that's not the story Mass Effect was telling. It was an abrupt tonal shift tacked on in the end. You're someone who doesn't mind that tonal shift because you like the trendy grimdark stuff, and that's fine. You're welcome to it.

I just wish this had been pitched as a grim and gritty universe with a cliche sacrificial messianic loss-of-innocence ending tacked on from the start, rather than providing messages of hope and understanding throughout. It's thematically inconsistent and I'm tired of this trend dominating modern science fiction, which used to have a much wider spectrum of tone.

QFT

I love that post.  

[Ieldra]

You don't understand where I'm coming from, CulturalGeekGirl:

I don't like stories that end without hope, and exactly that is the reason why I do NOT like ME3's ending (though I like the primary effects of the final choice). But I find it completely acceptable that the hero is required to compromise his morals to get the best result for the world/the galaxy/the universe. That, I think, is a message that needs to be told, and it's told not often enough IMO.

And to get get back the genocide: you can avoid it. You end up dead to the world, but you absolutely can avoid it. Your sacrifice gives a better result for the galaxy. And don't tell me you didn't see Shepard's death coming from a long way back.

Personally, what I don't like is the suggestion that you're plunging the galaxy into a dark age whatever you do. That's what's making things dark and hopeless for me. That, and the contrived way of keeping a surviving Shepard away from his friends. I absolutely hate these elements. I want better outcomes, but I do not require that my hands remains clean to achieve them.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 03 mai 2012 - 08:21 .

[Vormaerin]

Psile_01 wrote...

The problem with everything you've stated is that it basically requires the player to guess at what is going to happen.

Yes, its true that many things are not clear.   But most of the so called "plotholes" result from doom laden guesses about how things will turn out.  Alternative guesses are also valid.  Leaving it to guesswork is bad design, imho.  But that's not what most so called "pro enders" are disputing.

It is apparently possible for EDI to walk out of the ship on Destroy in certain rare circumstances.  Also, the "breath" scene seems to refute the "you will die" statement by the starchild.   So its not clear whether destroy kills anyone except the Reapers and their Mass Relays, since that is what we see happen.

There is no reason to believe that a self destruct command that involves a substantial energy transfer to the next relay in the network would result in the same kind of nova like explosion that an uncontrolled rupture from an asteroid impact would cause.  The 'everything goes boom' argument has always been one of the weakest parts of the doomsayer position.

Starvation is also a pretty weak peg.  You have a society that is capable of making omnigel and medigel and its impossible to imagine that they could synthesize protein paste?  Even if its not appetizing, its nutritious enough for survival.  The fleets, especially after the heavy losses, just aren't *that* big a number of people relative to the resources available.  There's over 100 stars within a couple days' travel of Earth by regular FTL drives.


But, in general, the points that are cited in the OP are mostly variations of "I don't like these choices".   The destroy option is clearly the one that the star child does not favor, so its reasonable to believe it is emphasizing the potential downsides to it.   

The control option the Illusive Man was looking at and what the Star child offers are not really the same thing.  His plan also involves reaperizing  people because its an "improvement". You are also comparing a specific paragon selection of dialogues with one decision.   That decision clearly doesn't follow easily from that line of dialogue.   Control is less outre if you basically told TIM he's a ****** and shot him.  Rejecting TIM's reaperization plan is not the same thing as ruling out all possible control schemes.

Synthesis is pretty annoying because its forced on everyone and is also, by far, the most space magic-y.   Its not intrinsically awful, though.  You'd potentially be getting rid of all kinds of health and aging problems.   This option is so weird that is really hard to evaluate its consequences.

[Joeybsmooth4]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Joeybsmooth4 wrote...

Sh0dan wrote...

Mass Effect has always pretended more the "illusion of choice" than offering actual choice. The game does so well commenting your decisions, but your choices have never changed the mainstory's narratives. Just imagine the nerdrage in case of getting an "unwanted and horrible" ending because of one small decision that you have made in ME1. Therefore bringing this final choice in the end isn't a bad solution. Nevertheless Bioware could have put more effort in the ending render sequence. Three colours and some slightly different scenes aren't enough.

All people that expected a massive impact of their choices fooled themselves.


Complaints about the introduction of the catalyst are a bit off as well. This child has been introduced in the first ten minutes of the game and kept being an element of Shepard's dreams through the entire game. Honestly, it doesn't matter who exactly the catalyst is. He's just there to speed up the story and fullfil Shepard's final choice. He might have been the wrong "vehicle" to transport the idea. A different appearance for this puppetmaster could have avoided bad blood.
Nevertheless his concept is similar to the Reapers. The less the player knows, the better.

If that Child that Shep see at teh start of the game is the same "person" he see at the end of the game . Than how in the hell does it have the power to move to Earth and back with ease. And if it is in his head than is it really a person.

Err...
No, it's not the same child.
Or rather, that child died in the Shuttle.
Then Shep had nightmares about that Child.
Then the Catalyst AI or whatever just extract that representative image from Shep's mind to appear to him as.

So that goes back to the point that it was a new character that come in at the last mins of the game .

[hex23]

Vormaerin wrote...


There is no reason to believe that a self destruct command that involves a substantial energy transfer to the next relay in the network would result in the same kind of nova like explosion that an uncontrolled rupture from an asteroid impact would cause.  The 'everything goes boom' argument has always been one of the weakest parts of the doomsayer position.

In the "Mass Effect" series we have 1 example of what happens when a Mass Relay explodes...."Arrival". So we have no reason to believe the rest of the Mass Relays "exploded differently". They exploded. You could argue that whatever energy the Catalyst released is different from an asteroid hitting them, but you can't really argue that because you have no idea. The only clarifiaction we got was from Bioware on Twitter, saying "the two explosions aren't the same". Prior to that the only precedent we had was "Arrival".

At best that's horribly lazy writing. Worst case scenario it's a plot hole.

[Joeybsmooth4]

Vormaerin wrote...

Psile_01 wrote...

The problem with everything you've stated is that it basically requires the player to guess at what is going to happen.

Yes, its true that many things are not clear.   But most of the so called "plotholes" result from doom laden guesses about how things will turn out.  Alternative guesses are also valid.  Leaving it to guesswork is bad design, imho.  But that's not what most so called "pro enders" are disputing.

It is apparently possible for EDI to walk out of the ship on Destroy in certain rare circumstances.  Also, the "breath" scene seems to refute the "you will die" statement by the starchild.   So its not clear whether destroy kills anyone except the Reapers and their Mass Relays, since that is what we see happen.

There is no reason to believe that a self destruct command that involves a substantial energy transfer to the next relay in the network would result in the same kind of nova like explosion that an uncontrolled rupture from an asteroid impact would cause.  The 'everything goes boom' argument has always been one of the weakest parts of the doomsayer position.

Starvation is also a pretty weak peg.  You have a society that is capable of making omnigel and medigel and its impossible to imagine that they could synthesize protein paste?  Even if its not appetizing, its nutritious enough for survival.  The fleets, especially after the heavy losses, just aren't *that* big a number of people relative to the resources available.  There's over 100 stars within a couple days' travel of Earth by regular FTL drives.


But, in general, the points that are cited in the OP are mostly variations of "I don't like these choices".   The destroy option is clearly the one that the star child does not favor, so its reasonable to believe it is emphasizing the potential downsides to it.   

The control option the Illusive Man was looking at and what the Star child offers are not really the same thing.  His plan also involves reaperizing  people because its an "improvement". You are also comparing a specific paragon selection of dialogues with one decision.   That decision clearly doesn't follow easily from that line of dialogue.   Control is less outre if you basically told TIM he's a ****** and shot him.  Rejecting TIM's reaperization plan is not the same thing as ruling out all possible control schemes.

Synthesis is pretty annoying because its forced on everyone and is also, by far, the most space magic-y.   Its not intrinsically awful, though.  You'd potentially be getting rid of all kinds of health and aging problems.   This option is so weird that is really hard to evaluate its consequences.

When we say that everything should go nova is due what they have showed in game . Not just what happen on the ME 2 DLC but there are also codex  reports that say it would blow up if anything happens to it . So just out of the blue something is goint to take it out but not hurt anyone. If that is going to happen you have to explain it .

[Cypher_CS]

Leem_0001 wrote...

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.

Of course no one's seen the Starkid.
I wasn't referring to Catalyst the entity, I was referring Catalyst the device.
Two different things, residing together. The former is the kid, the latter is the Citadel - hub of all MRs.
I was talking about the latter.

And again about Indoctrination.
As we see with TIM, his Indoctrination (which began from the Prothean relics he found in the comics) causes him to seek control of them.
Rather, TIM's indoctrination took a similar course to that of Shepard. Shepard's exposure to the Prothean relics allows him some immunity from Indoctrination. Same with TIM.
Some! Not complete. He can't be indoctrinated constantly, cause for Indoctrination to work a Reaper needs to be near you. We've learned this in ME1, with the relationship between Sovereign and Saren.
TIM is nowhere near a Reaper except towards the end, on the Citadel, or on Earth.

I get what you're saying about better explained.
But I, personally, don't like stories to be delivered on a silver platter.
A good example I always use is Dune's Heighliners.
In the original Novel (by FH) you had to work your brain to understand that the Guild Navigators act as computer replacements - they see a safe path through Spice induced Prescience. And the Holtzman Engines do the actual jump.
Many didn't understand - cause it's not spelled out in the book. David Lynch didn't understand it, and he had the Navigators actually Fold Space using their minds in the old Dune movie.
Then came Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson with their Prelude to Dune trilogy (Houses) - and there the young Leto Atreides asks this question of his father, Paulus, and gets a complete explanation on a silver platter. Spoon fed.
No need for the reader to think - it's all there, black on white.

[Cypher_CS]

Ariq wrote...

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?

That right there is bad attention to detail.
No excuse here.

humes spork wrote...

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.

 
Okay, that's true.
But the discussion here is solely about that. 
We aren't discussing evolution as a whole, but rather the fact that your still Human, still same species, even with a major change, and not a vicarious one. Is all.

Johcande XX wrote...

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

You're splitting unsplittable hairs.
Theme and Conflict are not different sides of the same coin.
A Conflict can (and is) a Theme.

Richard 060 wrote...

The problem with that idea is that the whole 'technological singularity' angle is your own knowledge, that you've applied to make sense of the Catalyst. It's not something that's mentioned in the actual game itself - all we get is the assumption that 'synthetics will eventually destroy all organic life'. That's it - any further justification is something external that you've applied.

Sorry, but that's not true.
It's a theme that has been explored during ME.
Sure, should have been explored deeper.

It has been explored with Overlord, it has been explored with the ban on AI development and with the Geth.
It's false and wrong to say it has not been mentioned in the game.

[Vormaerin]

hex23 wrote...

. You could argue that whatever energy the Catalyst released is different from an asteroid hitting them, but you can't really argue that because you have no idea.

Neither do you.  You are making a massive leap of illogic.   Just because something happens once in a certain situation DOES NOT in any way imply that the same thing will happen in an entirely different circumstance.

Have you ever worked with explosives?  Channeling explosions is not exactly complicated.  You can blow a building up so that it pretty much falls straight down or you can blow it up so it topples and scatteres rubble all over the place.

An uncontrolled detonation due to catastrophic core rupture in no way, shape, or form supports a conclusion that a self destruct command would have the same result.    The idea that it must nova is utter hogwash based on simplistic speculation.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Leem_0001 wrote...

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.

Of course no one's seen the Starkid.
I wasn't referring to Catalyst the entity, I was referring Catalyst the device.
Two different things, residing together. The former is the kid, the latter is the Citadel - hub of all MRs.
I was talking about the latter.

And again about Indoctrination.
As we see with TIM, his Indoctrination (which began from the Prothean relics he found in the comics) causes him to seek control of them.
Rather, TIM's indoctrination took a similar course to that of Shepard. Shepard's exposure to the Prothean relics allows him some immunity from Indoctrination. Same with TIM.
Some! Not complete. He can't be indoctrinated constantly, cause for Indoctrination to work a Reaper needs to be near you. We've learned this in ME1, with the relationship between Sovereign and Saren.
TIM is nowhere near a Reaper except towards the end, on the Citadel, or on Earth.

I get what you're saying about better explained.
But I, personally, don't like stories to be delivered on a silver platter.
A good example I always use is Dune's Heighliners.
In the original Novel (by FH) you had to work your brain to understand that the Guild Navigators act as computer replacements - they see a safe path through Spice induced Prescience. And the Holtzman Engines do the actual jump.
Many didn't understand - cause it's not spelled out in the book. David Lynch didn't understand it, and he had the Navigators actually Fold Space using their minds in the old Dune movie.
Then came Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson with their Prelude to Dune trilogy (Houses) - and there the young Leto Atreides asks this question of his father, Paulus, and gets a complete explanation on a silver platter. Spoon fed.
No need for the reader to think - it's all there, black on white.

This is not about wanting to have to not think, and it's patently insulting to suggest it.

It's about not having any good worldbuilding leading up to the reveal.

Let's take two examples: In one story, we have nanobots. We see a robot get destroyed, and watch it be rebuilt by nanobots. Earth is destroyed. Humanity comes back a hundred years later to find that the nanobots have used their repair algorhythms to repair it. If we were paying attention, we will realise that this is what happened.

Now, instead, imagine that we never see that first scene where nanobots rebuild a robot. Instead, we just hear people say "we have a catalyst." Then we see the earth destroyed. A hundred years later people show up and earth is rebuilt without any explanation. Finally someone says "oh yeah, the 'catalyst' we mysteriously referenced was nanobots."

The former is what I like in Sci Fi. The latter is what happened in Mass Effect. See the difference?

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

[Cypher_CS]

Oh yes, now I see!

Except, no, wait. While the difference is there, I've spent about 12 pages now, in this thread, saying that this is NOT the case with ME.

I'd concede to say that the case with some themes in ME was similar to having that nanobot rebuilding robot at the edge of a scenes with other things going on.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Oh yes, now I see!

Except, no, wait. While the difference is there, I've spent about 12 pages now, in this thread, saying that this is NOT the case with ME.

I'd concede to say that the case with some themes in ME was similar to having that nanobot rebuilding robot at the edge of a scenes with other things going on.

Ok. Can you tell me the scene where there was a green light that changes the fundamental nature of all of reality that it touches "on the edge"? 

I've said this before, but the reason I hate this ending is that it simplifies the idea of the tecnological singularity to the point where it is laughably simple and stupid, rather than exploring the nuances inherent in my favorite science fiction topic.

To quote myself:
I dislike the Synthesis ending in part because I love transhumanism and the singularity, and I think that the "green button" destroys this idea, and simplifies the concept to the point where it becomes boring and worthless.

There are lot of definitions for transhumanism, and the singularity is similarly ill-defined. My favorite kind of transhumanism is the "ghost in the machine." The question of what makes humans human; if we digitize our consciousness, are we still "us"? 

It's a series of questions that progresses incrementally. If you can digitize memory, record the exact state of a brain, can you recreate the being inside of it? If you put a brain in a clone body, is that person the same person? If you put the impulses from a brain into another genetically identical brain, is that still the same person? If you put the impulses from a brain into an entirely synthetic mobile platform, is that still the same person?

And, if it is, can you create a person... a human person... who has never had a human body at all? If the digitized consciousness of a human is a human, could a digitized consciousness with similar qualities that was created out of thin air be equally human, if it never had an organic body to start with?

And if you can... does humanity really mean anything at all anymore?

If you had told me that the ending of mass effect was going to be a question of destroying synthetic life, controlling synthetic life, or asking the universe to embrace transhumanism, I would have been so happy. To see transhumanism reduced to a simple "green button to homogenize all life," is severely disheartening to me, as a fan of science fiction.

This frustration is amplified by the fact that Mass Effect has productively engaged with transhumanism before, in the interesting narrative margins that the series has created through its codex and other ephemera, like the Cerberus News Network updates. Within that wonderful explosion of creative microfiction,  there's actually a lengthy arc about first contact with an entire alien race that has been living as an immortal, digitized consciousness for thousands of years. It then came out that these consciousnesses could be transferred to living organic bodies, and the consciousnesses of currently living organics could attain digitized simulated immortality.

"Ohmygod," I thought, "what does this mean for the interface of organics with the Geth? What if the geth interfaced with that society? Could we put a geth into an organic body? Could we add organic consciousness to the Geth consensus?" 

And then Mass Effect 3 showed that we could, indeed, put an organic into the consensus in at least some form.  Overlord suggested something similar as; that some organic consciousnesses might be suitable to direct communication with the Geth.

So to see all these beautiful, delicate steps toward transhumanism rendered moot by a freaking choice between destroying all synthetics (thus rendering the progress towards transhumanism moot) versus a button to simplify the philosophical questions of transhumanism into a inexplicable green glow, my science fiction-lovin 'heart wept tears of anger. It was like watching someone build a delicate and beautiful machine in support of a leap to the next level of understanding, only to have it smashed at the end by the sledgehammer of oversimplification.

Picking any one of the endings is basically admitting to the Starchild that transhumanism will not happen without direct intervention, when every other narrative voice in the universe is screaming that we're on the threshold of achieving it on our own terms.

It's a betrayal of all the most interesting ideas of transhumanism, reducing one of the most interesting and nuanced concepts in all of science fiction to a bland message of homogenous divine intervention.

[PsyrenY]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

To see transhumanism reduced to a simple "green button to homogenize all life," is severely disheartening to me, as a fan of science fiction.

It does not "homogenize all life." Removing one differential axis (organic/synthetic) does not make all the rest of them disappear.

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...


Picking any one of the endings is basically admitting to the Starchild that transhumanism will not happen without direct intervention, when every other narrative voice in the universe is screaming that we're on the threshold of achieving it on our own terms.

Bullcrap, it doesn't say that at all. The Catalyst says the exact opposite in fact - he believes that Synthesis is inevitable eventually, just that the Crucible will speed it up. It will remove the risk that transhumanism is rendered moot by organic annihilation by synthetics before it can happen (via gray goo etc.)

Modifié par Optimystic_X, 03 mai 2012 - 09:08 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Optimystic_X wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

To see transhumanism reduced to a simple "green button to homogenize all life," is severely disheartening to me, as a fan of science fiction.

It does not "homogenize all life." Removing one differential axis (organic/synthetic) does not make all the rest of them disappear.

It is a green button to homogenize all life in regards to the question of transhumanism, which is what we're discussing. Transhumanism is all about the gradual differences between the completely organic and the completely synthetic, and how the fact that this is a continuum creates ambiguity.

The ending here removes and destroys that interesting frisson. Without the spectrum, there is no ambiguity. I'm saying that from the point of view of someone who enjoys the science fictional concept of transhumanism, this would be seen as a homogenization, creating a universe where many fascinating inquiries into the nature of existence are now moot.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 03 mai 2012 - 09:11 .