449 réponses à ce sujet

[Vlta]

Again people automatically assume the robot just needs to order all the life forms I mean really explain to me why the robot even cares what the little human does and then maybe, just maybe I'll consider the man vs machine theory to have some merit.

[bc525]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

This is why the ending is badly written. It's the ending to a story about a hero who is always powerlessly being manipulated by the universe, not the ending to a story about a hero who has true agency. If the rest of the story were about Shepard never getting to do what he really wanted to and having no real power, but instead dancing on the machinations of an unfeeling, actively malevolent force, then this would be thematically consistent.

Such conviction in that paragraph, so sure that you are right and others are wrong.  One powerless moment at the end means the main character must've been powerless throughout?  Do the final moments of our lives really define us?

I posted a weakly worded thought about this over on drayfish's 'thematic revolting' thread and I'll post another weakly worded version here ... CG Girl why are you generalizing about everyone's "Shepard'?  Generalizations are very slippery slopes, and your Shepard doesn't automatically translate to every version of Shepard out there.  Churning the "bad writing" argument into a universal statement for all players just doesn't work, and if you're genuinely trying to convince other Mass Effect players that your interpretation of the series is 'right' then you're only setting yourself up for a big headache and insomnia.

You seem to be caught up in your Crow character and have pre-determined that only a sociopathic character can be the hero of the Mass Effect series.  I thought Hyoka brought up a great thought that a Renegade Shepard - not automatically a sociopathic Shepard - could fit consistently within the ME3 ending choices.  Does a Renegade Shepard just not fit within what you consider for a hero Shepard?  If not, then please define what a hero Shepard must be.

[ardensia]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

shurikenmanta wrote...

Torrible wrote...

shurikenmanta wrote...

ardensia wrote...
((Note: The term "pro-enders" has been placed in quotes because a lot of people who are more in the middle ground are getting tossed in this category simply because we don't find the endings incinerator-worthy. Sucks for us, I guess.))

Quoted for truth and sanity

+1 Unfortunately, people who are actually pro-patience, pro-neutrality or anti-petulance get lumped together with pro-enders. Eventually it became commonly accepted that a pro-ender is anyone who disagrees with an anti-ender. I used to call myself a neutral-ender but then I took a BSN arrow to the knee.

Yeah, I've lost count of the amount of times I've been accused of being a pro-ender - like I'm a Communist in the 50s or something. They tend to go rather quiet when I tell them I dislike the ending but hate hysteria

Hell, I got a reputation for being pro-Cerberus because I kept quibbling against common misconceptions.

Eventually you just accept it.

Yeah, prettymuch. I've abstained thus far from "defending" the points of view of the various "bad guys" in the series, but I'm sure I'll get around to it eventually. Nothing is really black and white in ME... but Garrus isn't the only one who doesn't know what to do with shades of grey. 

Also, that second sentence I just wrote there looks like the Turian councilmember got ahold of it.

Modifié par ardensia, 04 mai 2012 - 05:28 .

[Rulycar]

Sisterofshane wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...
...

If you accept the Catalyst's Logic and prophecy, then the ending makes sense.  Simple as that.

At least that's the only real counterpoint I've ever heard

I am not a pro-ender, but I think this challenge is interesting.
With that in mind ...
... the above quote says it all.

The Catalyst is older and more knowledgeable than Shepard.
Because this IS the ending, it is easy to assume The Catalyst is NOT lying.
... besides, at his age (and being a machine) what would be the purpose of lying?

RED - The Catalyst knows what tech is being destroyed, but does not know the level of dependency each individual has in regard to surviving the tech destruction.  Shepard, having lost too much blood, mistakenly steps into the explosion (with high enough war assets, his/her misstep can be slightly mitigated)

BLUE - The only reasonable option (IMO).  Again, why assume The Catalyst is lying?  TIM and/or Saren could not control the reapers because they were already controlled by the reapers.  Shepard is not indoctrinated and therefore can actually introduce new code to the controlling martix making it possible to control the reapers.  Integration requires Shepard to be demolecularized, leaving his "self" completely intact within the matrix.  The reapers are then sent on their merry, your surviving friends get to live and rebuild, the war is over and the price is Shepard's corporeal form and the "freedom" of the enemy race.  Should Shepard desire, he/she might create a new mobile platform to inhabit.

GREEN - The worse ending possible (IMO).  Again, assume The Catalyst is telling the truth.  A Shepard who has been played with freedom/diversity when possible and force/control when people get in his way could easily select forced merging as a solution.  Peace is obtained and noone else has to die (reapers, AI, organic, etc).  Of course, individual freedom is thrown under the bus ... but the war is over 8)

1) Don't assume The Catalyst is lying.
2) All three endings end the war (the goal for three games).
3) The solution is NOT perfect, but this IS the ending, and you only have three choices ... make the choice (or die).
4) These endings allow for:
... a) interpretation
... speculation
... c) discussion
... d) artistic integrity

I feel dirty ... I'm going to go take a shower.

Modifié par Rulycar, 04 mai 2012 - 06:02 .

[Shynnagh]

Never posted on these forums before. I have only one thing to say. AI's destroying ALL organic life is a tall order. For the Catalyst's logic to be sound, it would have to possess some modicum of empirical data. But that is impossible for it to possess, for that would make it's entire existence irrelevant. For it would have had to have happened before, and that is not possible logically, in the Milky Way, because there stands Shepard before it, walking and talking and blowing stuff up.

Or perhaps its not impossible. Maybe its data was gathered from another galaxy? Perhaps the catalyst is greater than our small spiral? Were the Reapers and the Catalyst designed by extragalactic beings at the dawn of the universe? 

I just want some answers, that is all. I am a huge fan... as much fun as speculating is, I just want some good old fashioned storytelling from Bioware. Come on guys.... I know you can do it. I am counting on you. Finish telling the story.

Modifié par Shynnagh, 04 mai 2012 - 06:18 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

bc525 wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

This is why the ending is badly written. It's the ending to a story about a hero who is always powerlessly being manipulated by the universe, not the ending to a story about a hero who has true agency. If the rest of the story were about Shepard never getting to do what he really wanted to and having no real power, but instead dancing on the machinations of an unfeeling, actively malevolent force, then this would be thematically consistent.

Such conviction in that paragraph, so sure that you are right and others are wrong.  One powerless moment at the end means the main character must've been powerless throughout?  Do the final moments of our lives really define us?

I posted a weakly worded thought about this over on drayfish's 'thematic revolting' thread and I'll post another weakly worded version here ... CG Girl why are you generalizing about everyone's "Shepard'?  Generalizations are very slippery slopes, and your Shepard doesn't automatically translate to every version of Shepard out there.  Churning the "bad writing" argument into a universal statement for all players just doesn't work, and if you're genuinely trying to convince other Mass Effect players that your interpretation of the series is 'right' then you're only setting yourself up for a big headache and insomnia.

You seem to be caught up in your Crow character and have pre-determined that only a sociopathic character can be the hero of the Mass Effect series.  I thought Hyoka brought up a great thought that a Renegade Shepard - not automatically a sociopathic Shepard - could fit consistently within the ME3 ending choices.  Does a Renegade Shepard just not fit within what you consider for a hero Shepard?  If not, then please define what a hero Shepard must be.

A lot of my conclusion statements are based on the rest of the post they're in. I'm not yelling at you for taking that out of context, but I'll explain how the nuance in the rest of my post was supposed to color that statement.

I'm  not saying that the ending Makes Shepard not a hero. Nowhere even in the paragraph you quoted did I say that... but there are two kinds of hero.

Type One is the hero who does not truly control his own fate. He's bound by a predestined path, and there are more powerful forces at work that limit his choices. All he can do is make the least bad choices he can, but the fates or the gods or his bosses or some other dark force have the real power.  That doesn't make him less of a hero, though it usually makes him either a tragic hero or an antihero.  This category contains some great literary heroes: Oedipus, Macbeth, Elric of Melinbone, or Rand Al'thor

Type Two is the hero who is in control, who isn't limited by fate or dark forces that are more powerful than him. In this world, the hero can often win outright without losing his identity or compromising his goals. Heroes who fit this type are people like Batman, Granny Weatherwax, Huck Finn, Edmund Dantes. These guys are all about free will, and they aren't being manipulated by dark powers that they can never overcome. They stand toe to toe with the world.

Both are good and interesting types of heroes. But I'm a little tired of variety number one, and vastly prefer variety number two. I think that Shepard was being set up as more of a Type 2 hero (has free will as a core inherent property) than a Type 1 Hero (has the inevitability of fate as an inherent property).

Shepard went from Batman to Macbeth. Batman would never commit a genocide to stop a crime, he'd come up with another solution, because he's a type2 hero. Macbeth would just keep murdering everyone to try to achieve his goals, and still end tragically, because he's a type1 hero. I like both stories, but I'd rather be Batman.

It's not that the Macbeth type hero or the Macbeth type ending are always bad... I just got the impression from the rest of the story that I was playing a more Batmanlike hero.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 04 mai 2012 - 07:12 .

[Cypher_CS]

Granny Weatherwax FTW!

[Sable Phoenix]

I will add, as a response to bc525 and in support of CulturalGeekGirl, that regardless of Paragon or Renegade status, Shepard has never been a passive hero. She is always active, moving through the events of the story and changing them by her mere presence. The central theme of her character is that of perseverance; this is a hero who headbutts krogan, slays thresher maws on foot, and defies Reapers to their faces. This is a hero who not even death could maintain a grip upon.

At the ending, that hero, whether Paragon or Renegade, whether sociopath or saint, vanishes completely and is replaced by a vacillating, weak-willed series of "maybes" and "I don't knows". That is why it's bad writing.

Modifié par Sable Phoenix, 04 mai 2012 - 07:19 .

[bc525]

Ah, my mistake Nyoka. I translated your posting onto the ME3 ending. My bad.

[Cypher_CS]

I wouldn't really call him submissive or obedient - he does argue for two or three words

But, again, there's no question that this ending should have had much more dialog and that dialog should have reflected past individual choices.

[Cypher_CS]

Current realities are irrelevant.
They are not a refuting proof against the Catalyst's logic or whatever. Absolutely not.

Now, trying to convince a truly alien intelligence - that would be a story telling feat.

[Cypher_CS]

No, it's not proof.
Because you can't know what other AI will be created next, or what other conflict even the Geth might get themselves into and then decide, with their supreme intelligence that they must avoid further such conflict and the only way to do that would be to eradicate (not even enslave)....

It's not a proof.
It's a SINGLE example, one following earlier conflicts and AI banning laws.

It is NOT proof.

[Ariq]

Rulycar wrote...

BLUE - The only reasonable option (IMO).  Again, why assume The Catalyst is lying?  TIM and/or Saren could not control the reapers because they were already controlled by the reapers.  Shepard is not indoctrinated and therefore can actually introduce new code to the controlling martix making it possible to control the reapers.  Integration requires Shepard to be demolecularized, leaving his "self" completely intact within the matrix.  The reapers are then sent on their merry, your surviving friends get to live and rebuild, the war is over and the price is Shepard's corporeal form and the "freedom" of the enemy race.  Should Shepard desire, he/she might create a new mobile platform to inhabit.

Emphasis added.

Referring to the bolded portion: I've seen several people claim this, but what is the basis for believing Shepard continues to exist "within the matrix"? 

The Catalyst specifically says Shepard will "die" and "lose everything that you have". This is a being that considers being ground up into sludge and pumped into a metal shell to be preservation via ascension. The Catalyst most certainly doesn't say that Shepard will ascend, or that Shepard will be uploaded, or that Shepard will continue to exist in any way whatsoever.

[GuardianAngel470]

Cypher_CS wrote...

It still works, depending on YOUR CHOICES.
Read comments made on Page 2 and onward.

I'm not really sure why you are emphasizing this, but OK. A renegade could technically have perpetuated antagonistic relations with synthetics. Giving Legion to Cerberus, advocating for war with the Geth while on the flotilla, "demoralizing" EDI all throughout ME2, shooting it down in ME3, destroying the geth in ME3, and a whole host of smaller decisions.

In such a context, the Starchild's rationale makes sense.

However a paragon, paragade, or possibly renegon might not (in the former two's cases most likely didn't) make those same choices. From Bioware's own metrics, gathered during ME2 playthroughs, we know that the majority of players played with a paragon slant. This isn't everybody on BSN; this is everybody with a working internet connection and the setting switched on on their games.

For them (us), the Starchild's rationale does NOT make sense.

And therein lies the problem. Not even accounting for a possible majority, the situation as presented is flawed because it disregards the choices made by an entire group of players. For paragon-esque players, synthetics vs. organics has been proven to be a false dilemma. Not for renegades sure, but for paragons it has.

Yet the Starchild's logic is the same regardless. Both groups and every shade of gray inbetween are presented with the same rationale. All parties are presented with the same three choices, the same three general consequences, and the same break in character of our protagonist.

I'm not sure if you meant this, but arguing that under certain conditions the ending makes sense is like arguing your girl/boyfriend looks nice but only during a blue moon. Sure the statement's true, but it isn't applicable to the vast majority of situations.

Modifié par GuardianAngel470, 04 mai 2012 - 09:33 .

[Rulycar]

Ariq wrote...

Rulycar wrote...

BLUE - The only reasonable option (IMO).  Again, why assume The Catalyst is lying?  TIM and/or Saren could not control the reapers because they were already controlled by the reapers.  Shepard is not indoctrinated and therefore can actually introduce new code to the controlling martix making it possible to control the reapers.  Integration requires Shepard to be demolecularized, leaving his "self" completely intact within the matrix.  The reapers are then sent on their merry, your surviving friends get to live and rebuild, the war is over and the price is Shepard's corporeal form and the "freedom" of the enemy race.  Should Shepard desire, he/she might create a new mobile platform to inhabit.

Emphasis added.

Referring to the bolded portion: I've seen several people claim this, but what is the basis for believing Shepard continues to exist "within the matrix"? 

The Catalyst specifically says Shepard will "die" and "lose everything that you have". This is a being that considers being ground up into sludge and pumped into a metal shell to be preservation via ascension. The Catalyst most certainly doesn't say that Shepard will ascend, or that Shepard will be uploaded, or that Shepard will continue to exist in any way whatsoever.

For me, I offer this because The Catalyst tells us we can control the reapers.
If Shepard does not exist, he cannot control anything ... therefore I conclude he must exist and one explanation is he dies physically but continues existing as "self" within code.

[Cypher_CS]

Nyoka wrote...

Yeah, it's a single example. That's how counterexamples work, you know.

If you say ALL SHEEP ARE WHITE, then one single non-white sheep is proof enough that you're wrong. Doesn't matter if you show me a lot of white sheep. You're still wrong that ALL OF THEM are white.

That's entirely NOT the case here.

Yes, he says the created will always rebel.
He never says they will immediatly rebel or anything of the sorts.
EDI hasn't rebelled yet. Geth haven't rebelled yet.
Doesn't mean they will, btw. But maybe something they create later will. That's the point.
Stop being so absolute.

It's like saying SHEEP WILL ALWAYS EAT GRASS, the one single sheep is eating leafs.
It never said ONLY GRASS.

[GuardianAngel470]

Cypher_CS wrote...

No, it's not proof.
Because you can't know what other AI will be created next, or what other conflict even the Geth might get themselves into and then decide, with their supreme intelligence that they must avoid further such conflict and the only way to do that would be to eradicate (not even enslave)....

It's not a proof.
It's a SINGLE example, one following earlier conflicts and AI banning laws.

It is NOT proof.

I'm sorry, this is just a ridiculous perpetuated misconception. For a synthetic that could make its home on literally any planet, in any star system, or in any vacant space with a power source, the bolded is simply Never, ever going to happen.

In this galaxy alone, the geth and any other synthetic race could make their home in any of ~23,326,325,452,905 cubic light years. For those wondering, that's a ****-ton of empty space.

People have this strange misconception about synthetic life. They think that a synthetic would naturally decide at some point that organics are too dangerous to be left alive and thus must be taken out through war. For some reason, people think that war would be preferable to retreat to a synthetic interested in self preservation, as if opening themselves up to utter anihilation is somehow a logical thing to do.

If your chances of survival are moderate if you start a war and high if you retreat, why would you fight? Organics would do it to protect their homes, land, and creed but a synthetic doesn't care about any of that.

This rationale could technically be applied to terrestrial (read: Earth only) situations but once you enter space there is simply no reason a synthetic would attack instead of retreat.

[Rulycar]

or ...
... The Catalyst has observed the inevitable extermination of ALL organic life by an AI/Machine race for all history prior to implementing the reaper cycles, and the peacefullness of Geth and EDI are irrelevant to the eventual outcome.

[alienatedflea]

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

First off, Synthesis does not huskify anyone...so that point is null and void.
Second, ever cross your mind that the ending we have might not be the real ending? Need evidence? The maroon planet scene (there is no explanation of why joker was traveling away from the battle...all we see is that after we make our choice, we see our squadmates then joker fleeing the battle?? Joker charged Sovereign and the Collector's Base...do you really believe Joker would have fled the final battle of the galaxy?
Third, being pro-ending does not mean I would not want to see some changes to the endings (if the endings we have is the real dea) but I am not going to sit around for 2 solid months ****ing about a damn video game either.