Guest_EternalAmbiguity_*
ArchLord James wrote...
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.
This is not true at all.
The entirety, the absolute entirety, of ME1, portrays synthetics as "against" organics.
The majority of ME2 does the the exact same. This only changes slightly through EDI, and much later at the end of the game with Legion.
ME3 makes more strides towards what that person says than either of the other two games combined.
And, there's a problem.
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.
This is the problem. Because this person has no proof of the Catalyst's determined future, this person rejects it. That then makes this seem like an awful solution.
However, everything sounds stupid if you reject the premise it is predicated upon. And, the thing is, the Catalyst knows more than we do. We've been around for like, fifty years, maybe less. The Catalyst has been around for millenia. He knows things we do not.
For all you or I know, this has happened every time, and the next thing to happen is that the AI realize how complacent the organics are or the organics realize how strong the AI are and the war begins.
The problem here is not that his logic is false, it's that we have no proof of his logic. The problem with this is exposition, not bad logic.
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?
Why are you comparing the paragon Shepard's beliefs to a renegade option? That's like saying, "Keep Collector Base was a horrible choice because a paragon Shepard won't let fear compromise who he is."
Even more damning, why are you putting beliefs and feelings in the mouth of Shepard? Shepard varies for every single person who plays the game. A person might play the game as a paragon, yet support Cerberus (like Lotion Sorranor here on BSN (I know that's spelled wrong)), which seemingly flies in the face of what you just said. you can't generalize these feelings to every Shepard. Thus, all of that is invalid.
It might be how YOUR Shepard feels, but it isn't necessarily how every other paragon Shepard feels. You're (or whoever wrote this is) making too many assumptions, far too many.
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.
You have the strongest position here, but still:
Synthesis is nothing, nothing like the Reapers. Reapers are created by melting the "essence" of a large large number of a species (probably has to be sentient, though not certain) and pumping it into the metallic body, not by fusing organic and sythetic materials on each individual species.
Minions like Saren and TIM were essentially turned into husks. The longer time went on, the lesser they were able to resist the call of the Reapers, and eventually they would become drooling bundles of bones and wires.
Synthesis doesn't turn the denizens of the galaxy into husks; the sythetc part of them is not a direct connection allowing the Reapers to control them.
And, once again, we return to rejecting or accepting the Catalyst's logic. it's as another poster in this thread mentioned--if you accept the Catalyst's logic, it makes sense. If you don't, it doesn't. The thing is, there's no proof either way whether the Catalyst's logic is true or not. I believe it because A) it's been around a h*ll of a lot longer than the puny humans have and
there's no reason not to. Others choose not to. That's fine, but don't pretend that there's any surplus of logic and reason on that side, because there isn't. it's all based on the direction of one's faith--for or against.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.
What? Are you really going to argue that the fact that you have to press W as opposed to simply moving your mouse is something bad?
1. Definition of genocide. Read, deliberate. This is not deliberate. Shepard is not doing this because they want to kill synthetics. They're doing this because there's no other option.
Imagine the age-old example of the boxcar running free down the train tracks. It's on a path to kill five people; if you could switch it to a line where it only kills one person, would you? Would you stand by while more than a necessary amount of people are killed?
It's the same situation. Your two choices are: Let the Reapers kill everyone and everything, or destroy synthetics.
The problem with this one is that people want the amount of choices to be greater. Just like in ME2's ending ("I want the option to give the base to the Aliiance!"). Unfortunately, that just isn't realistic (for ME3, not necessarily for ME2).
Life doesn't present you with a circumstance and then say, "hey! You can do anything and everything now. Take your time, make up your mind." No, you're often left with two choices that you don't really want. Where do you think the term, "The lesser of two evils" came from? Or, "between a rock and a hard place"? So the problem HERE is that these people are looking for more escapism than the game currently allows.
2. Says who? How do YOU know I'm not the kind of person who craves power, but is incredibly fearful of falling from power, so I'm very nice to people I meet, but when the chance for absolute power is available absolutely jumps for it? How do you know that? You don't.
Assumptions, assumptions.
3. Really? Really? -100 for throwing controversal words in to illicit an emotional response; that smacks of someone who has no logic to prove their point and instead relies on clouding the issue.
As I said before you have the strongest point here, but in no way is it "raping" anyone or anything.
One might say Shepard is taking more authority than he has. But, why didn't you say that when it came to saving or killing the Rachni Queen, someone you know NOTHING about and someone that the Council knows a heck of a lot about? Or, with the Collector Base? Both of those are decisions that should have been made by people much higher up than Shepard.
Basically what I'm saying here is that your point has validity, but don't forget that ME1 and ME2 did the exact same thing. It isn't unprecedented.
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.
I'm sorry. I didn't know Mass Effect's story was about Shepard's tea parties on the Normandy, or who Shepard's currently humping, or who Shepard's bo-ing it up with. I thought it was about the Reapers. Finding a way to stop the Reapers.
The squadmates are just side notes. Nice to have around, but they aren't very important compared to the Reapers.
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
Actually, this is wrong. There is a story.
Shepard discovers the Reapers. Shepard finds a way to stop the Reapers.
That's the story of ME, whether one likes it or not. The main quest does.not.change, regardless of how one's Shepard acts.
Thus, the "vision" of ME has never been about shaping your own story...there's already one.
And, significantly affect the outcome--what? Where did you get this from? This never happened. it was completely and utterly nonexistent in ME1, and in ME2 the only thing that could be called this was the simple mathematical equation at the very.end.of.the.game that determined very little in terms of outcome (the only thing that matters is whether you have two squadmates left or not). There's no precedent for this.
So, no, ME1 and ME2 definitely did NOT do this, and ME3 is just like it's predecessors.
Modifié par EternalAmbiguity, 03 mai 2012 - 05:30 .
Retour en haut
