449 réponses à ce sujet

[Sh0dan]

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.

Modifié par Sh0dan, 03 mai 2012 - 10:05 .

[Eain]

Cypher_CS wrote...
Sorry, but I really don't see how Starkid replaces Shepard, or the Player, as the hero.
Not seeing it.

Freddie Prince Jr will explain:

Active characters, not reactive.

Modifié par Eain, 03 mai 2012 - 10:05 .

[Biotic_Warlock]

Destroy ending doesn't always kill shepard though...
Slight mistake worth pointing out...

[Leem_0001]

Cypher_CS wrote...
Secondly, these choices are not of the Reaper's doing.
And I'm sorry, but I personally saw them quite clearly as the creations of Man. The original Destroy which was created by the Crucible's original purpose and it's cyclic creators. The added Control which was created by the various cyclic splinter groups in each cycle that thought similarly to TIM and the group Javik or Vengence talk about regarding the Prothean's inability to use the Crucible.
And the added Synthesis, which seems to me as something Catalyst gleaned from Shepard's mind (obviously it can read his mind - that's the whole allegory of using the Child from his mind, from his nightmares, and even by the developers' use of both Male and Female voices in the VO), Shepard's accomplishment.

Without getting into insults etc, as I can respect everyones opinions, but I cannot follow your logic about where the endings came from. They were the creations of Man? Even though you then go on to say the Destroy was the Cruicibles original purpose? Then the Control option was added by a splinter group of a cycle? And synthesis came about because the catalyst read Shepards mind?

There is nothing, NOTHING, in the game to give any basis to this. In fact, the catalyst specifically says that no other organic being before Shepard had made it that far, to see any of these choices. So how did some splinter group from a previous cycle create it? There is nothing that can back that up.

[Leem_0001]

Sh0dan wrote...
All people that expected a massive impact of their choices fooled themselves.
 

No, they didn't. It wasnt an over expectiation to expect more from the endings. We are not saying every last little choice would effect the ending, but there were some big choices along the way that could have branched out.

Saving the Rachnni Queen in ME1
Saving the Council in ME1
What you did with the Collector base at the end of ME2
And then the choices you made with regards to unifying the galaxy in ME3.

We are not talking a countless amount of endings here, 3-5 that offer variety would have avoided this.

[Cypher_CS]

Leem_0001 wrote...

Cypher_CS wrote...
Secondly, these choices are not of the Reaper's doing.
And I'm sorry, but I personally saw them quite clearly as the creations of Man. The original Destroy which was created by the Crucible's original purpose and it's cyclic creators. The added Control which was created by the various cyclic splinter groups in each cycle that thought similarly to TIM and the group Javik or Vengence talk about regarding the Prothean's inability to use the Crucible.
And the added Synthesis, which seems to me as something Catalyst gleaned from Shepard's mind (obviously it can read his mind - that's the whole allegory of using the Child from his mind, from his nightmares, and even by the developers' use of both Male and Female voices in the VO), Shepard's accomplishment.

Without getting into insults etc, as I can respect everyones opinions, but I cannot follow your logic about where the endings came from. They were the creations of Man? Even though you then go on to say the Destroy was the Cruicibles original purpose? Then the Control option was added by a splinter group of a cycle? And synthesis came about because the catalyst read Shepards mind?

There is nothing, NOTHING, in the game to give any basis to this. In fact, the catalyst specifically says that no other organic being before Shepard had made it that far, to see any of these choices. So how did some splinter group from a previous cycle create it? There is nothing that can back that up.

Play the game again.

The Crucible was designed, according to everything revealed during the game, from cycle to cycle, constantly added to by each cycle's top races. Their goal? Obvious. To Destroy the Reapers.
So far so good?
This is all in the game.

We have one single piece of technology in the entire galaxy that connect all the Mass Relays together, as well as the Reapers. That being the Catalyst. The Citadel. This we learn from ME1, BTW.
So the Curcible must be either a giant EMP or something more frequency based. Or even a frequency based EMP, tuned specifically for the Reapers. Using the Mass Relays network to destroy them all at once.
Thus having to use the Citadel, the Catalyst, cause you can't just take it everywhere - the Reapers will take it out.
So it must be a single shot thing.
Hence Catalyst, Citadel, whatever.
So far so good?
There is definitely some extrapolation at work here, but so far the logic is sound, within the bounds of the ME universe.

Next we have Control.
Who wants Control?
Cerberus does. We know this from ME2 and ME3.
Who also wanted Control? According to Javik or Vengence (can't remember which, might have been both) their Cycle also had a similar splinter group to Cerberus, who sabotaged the Crucible before they could fire it.
Presumably, if they wanted control, the sabotage was an introduction of software or even hardware to allow for a signal (again, frequency) to Control all Reapers - using the same exact method of the Catalyst as an interface or conduit through all Mass Relays to affect all Reapers.

We can safely assume that Control was not the invention of Cerberus or the Prothean splinter group. Since we don't know how many Cycles have already been - it's reasonable to assume there were other such groups in the other cycles.

So far?

Now we get to Synthesis.
That one's no longer explained in game.
But again, to me, it felt as if the Catalyst found an additional solution, based on Shepard's experience (which I already listed in the previous posts) and using the same medium as the other two.
Again, this is the most out there option, obviously and needs a much bigger leap of faith or suspension of disbelief to accept (the first two, basically, don't need such leaps at all).

[Valkyre4]

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?

Ι will only comment on this since this is what I chose on my first playthrough so this is what I experienced and what I made of it.

And I find this point rather very very easy to refute to be honest...

Yes Shepard spent an entire game questioning Illusive Man's plan to control Reapers. Can you blame him lol? IM has proven time and again that he is simply an opportunist and will not hesitate to do anything. It is not the first time he could lie and deceive Shepard, so why should Shepard believe him in the first place? Yes Shepard convinced him that it is wrong to lose your morality over the matter , and yes it led to him shooting himself.

ON MY PLAYTHROUGH AND STRANGE AEONS.

Other people simply killed IM or chose to even be more willing to hear what he has to say about the whole control plan. So dont assume that everyone moraly denied 100% what IM said and that everyone talked him into suicide.

Even so though, as I said that is how things went in my playthrough as well. I really dont understand what the "oh my God this is insane, stupid and wrong" part of all this is. There is a difference between walking the path and KNOWING the path.

Shepard could question IM plans all he wants. I did too. And that is logical. But Shepard first and foremost :

a) Doesnt know with absolute certainty that what IM CLAIMS to be able to do, is actually going to work. That is what the INDOCTRINATED IM claims.

Exactly because the IM is INDOCTRINATED, no matter what he says, he simply is not to be trusted and HAS TO BE DEALT WITH, one way or the other.

When the Star Child simply tells you and CONFIRMS you that controlling the Reapers IS GOING TO WORK and is going to end the cycle successfully, you no longer question whether this can work or not and you no longer have morality in place . Or.... you actually do... it is YOUR choice to follow that option.... Just because Shepard a few moments ago while dealing with an indoctrinated and certainly not trustworthy IM, chose to tell him the things he told him, doesnt mean that he knew all the facts.

Now, with the Star Child's information he does know. He is certain this is ONE way of ending things successfully. He is also not indoctrinated and he is told that IM was right, but he could never actually do it because he was indoctrinated beyond return.

I really seriously and honestly cannot find where this whole thing seemd wrong to you.....no way.

Modifié par Valkyre4, 03 mai 2012 - 10:45 .

[Leem_0001]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Leem_0001 wrote...

Cypher_CS wrote...
Secondly, these choices are not of the Reaper's doing.
And I'm sorry, but I personally saw them quite clearly as the creations of Man. The original Destroy which was created by the Crucible's original purpose and it's cyclic creators. The added Control which was created by the various cyclic splinter groups in each cycle that thought similarly to TIM and the group Javik or Vengence talk about regarding the Prothean's inability to use the Crucible.
And the added Synthesis, which seems to me as something Catalyst gleaned from Shepard's mind (obviously it can read his mind - that's the whole allegory of using the Child from his mind, from his nightmares, and even by the developers' use of both Male and Female voices in the VO), Shepard's accomplishment.

Without getting into insults etc, as I can respect everyones opinions, but I cannot follow your logic about where the endings came from. They were the creations of Man? Even though you then go on to say the Destroy was the Cruicibles original purpose? Then the Control option was added by a splinter group of a cycle? And synthesis came about because the catalyst read Shepards mind?

There is nothing, NOTHING, in the game to give any basis to this. In fact, the catalyst specifically says that no other organic being before Shepard had made it that far, to see any of these choices. So how did some splinter group from a previous cycle create it? There is nothing that can back that up.

Play the game again.

The Crucible was designed, according to everything revealed during the game, from cycle to cycle, constantly added to by each cycle's top races. Their goal? Obvious. To Destroy the Reapers.
So far so good?
This is all in the game.

We have one single piece of technology in the entire galaxy that connect all the Mass Relays together, as well as the Reapers. That being the Catalyst. The Citadel. This we learn from ME1, BTW.
So the Curcible must be either a giant EMP or something more frequency based. Or even a frequency based EMP, tuned specifically for the Reapers. Using the Mass Relays network to destroy them all at once.
Thus having to use the Citadel, the Catalyst, cause you can't just take it everywhere - the Reapers will take it out.
So it must be a single shot thing.
Hence Catalyst, Citadel, whatever.
So far so good?
There is definitely some extrapolation at work here, but so far the logic is sound, within the bounds of the ME universe.

Next we have Control.
Who wants Control?
Cerberus does. We know this from ME2 and ME3.
Who also wanted Control? According to Javik or Vengence (can't remember which, might have been both) their Cycle also had a similar splinter group to Cerberus, who sabotaged the Crucible before they could fire it.
Presumably, if they wanted control, the sabotage was an introduction of software or even hardware to allow for a signal (again, frequency) to Control all Reapers - using the same exact method of the Catalyst as an interface or conduit through all Mass Relays to affect all Reapers.

We can safely assume that Control was not the invention of Cerberus or the Prothean splinter group. Since we don't know how many Cycles have already been - it's reasonable to assume there were other such groups in the other cycles.

So far?

Now we get to Synthesis.
That one's no longer explained in game.
But again, to me, it felt as if the Catalyst found an additional solution, based on Shepard's experience (which I already listed in the previous posts) and using the same medium as the other two.
Again, this is the most out there option, obviously and needs a much bigger leap of faith or suspension of disbelief to accept (the first two, basically, don't need such leaps at all).

No, sorry, it sounds to me like you are inventing things to fit.

Yes, the crucible was added to via each cycle, not problems there.

We do not learn from ME1 that the Citadel is the catalyst. We know nothing of what the catayst is until ME3, when we see Starchild. Nobody, other than Starchild himself, is aware of Starchild until Shepard meets him/it. This is stated on ME3. The catalyst is a living thing (whether AI etc, isn't actually explained) - so no previous cycle is aware of what the Catalyst actually is. These are facts taken from what is stated in the game. I wont even go into the point about why the cycles would create a weapon that needed a catalyst to fire, when they knew nothing about this catalyst. If they didn't know it existed how did they know it was needed to fire the weapon?

The logic is not sound.

Next up, control. To quote you: "Presumably, if they wanted control, the sabotage was an introduction of software or even hardware to allow for a signal (again, frequency) to Control all Reapers - using the same exact method of the Catalyst as an interface or conduit through all Mass Relays to affect all Reapers." Where are you getting this? Some kind of virus to control the Reapers? This is not even hinted at anywhere. No one knows how the crucible fires, as they do not know what they catalyst is, no one has seen it, no one made it to that section of the citadel where the activation methods for the three choices were. We are told this. So how have a Prothean splinet group set all this up?

There is no way we can safely assume this was set up by the a Prothean splinter group, let alone Cerberus. It defies any kind of logic and the jumps you are making to get the whole thing to fit together are too much of a stretch to consider the endings good storytelling.

The third, you say your self that a leap of faith is needed, so I won't go into it too much - and leave the ethics and moreals and themes of the series for a different debate.

So, I still do respect your opinions, and I am truely glad you enjoy they endings (seriously, it sounds like you have everything you need to get the complete ME3 experience right there on the disk), but the endings as they stand, for many other reasons than the ones we are talking about, have wrecked the franchise for me. And the reaon I am still here, I am hoping and praying they fix it, and if they see enough people are so dissapointed then maybe (doubtful, but still) they will. I would rather that than walk away from Bioware for good.

[Leem_0001]

Valkyre4 wrote...

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?

Ι will only comment on this since this is what I chose on my first playthrough so this is what I experienced and what I made of it.

And I find this point rather very very easy to refute to be honest...

Yes Shepard spent an entire game questioning Illusive Man's plan to control Reapers. Can you blame him lol? IM has proven time and again that he is simply an opportunist and will not hesitate to do anything. It is not the first time he could lie and deceive Shepard, so why should Shepard believe him in the first place? Yes Shepard convinced him that it is wrong to lose your morality over the matter , and yes it led to him shooting himself.

ON MY PLAYTHROUGH AND STRANGE AEONS.

Other people simply killed IM or chose to even be more willing to hear what he has to say about the whole control plan. So dont assume that everyone moraly denied 100% what IM said and that everyone talked him into suicide.

Even so though, as I said that is how things went in my playthrough as well. I really dont understand what the "oh my God this is insane, stupid and wrong" part of all this is. There is a difference between walking the path and KNOWING the path.

Shepard could question IM plans all he wants. I did too. And that is logical. But Shepard first and foremost :

a) Doesnt know with absolute certainty that what IM CLAIMS to be able to do, is actually going to work. That is what the INDOCTRINATED IM claims.

Exactly because the IM is INDOCTRINATED, no matter what he says, he simply is not to be trusted and HAS TO BE DEALT WITH, one way or the other.

When the Star Child simply tells you and CONFIRMS you that controlling the Reapers IS GOING TO WORK and is going to end the cycle successfully, you no longer question whether this can work or not and you no longer have morality in place . Or.... you actually do... it is YOUR choice to follow that option.... Just because Shepard a few moments ago while dealing with an indoctrinated and certainly not trustworthy IM, chose to tell him the things he told him, doesnt mean that he knew all the facts.

Now, with the Star Child's information he does know. He is certain this is ONE way of ending things successfully. He is also not indoctrinated and he is told that IM was right, but he could never actually do it because he was indoctrinated beyond return.

I really seriously and honestly cannot find where this whole thing seemd wrong to you.....no way.

In ME3 it is shown that AI is life to be valued, and synthetics and organics can co-exist. Geth and EDI. Control is to force a species into slavery. Nowhere in the ME series is slavery seen as a good thing. The topic isn't just brought up in the last 10 minutes of the game, it is delt with throughout the series.

And a lot of people have issue with Shepard trusting what the Starchild tells him too easily. Saren told him that joining the Reapers was the only way to survive. Soverign and Harbinger told him that defying them was futile etc etc. Why is this thing, who controls the reapers, trusted so easiy. Just because it takes the form of a child?

And hypothetically, if the cotnrol ending was an option, maybe a morally wrong one, but it was there. Then why isn't there a morally correct one. The only other options are to fuse all life together, against their will, this removing any diversity. And to destroy all synthetic life, not just the reapers, but the geth and EDI too. We are wiping out an entire species here, who are fighting along side us as allies.

These themes, I'll say again, go directly against the theme of the series (unity in spite of diversity).

[Cypher_CS]

Indeed, Starkid says "I am the Catalyst".
That's either sloppy fact checking on the part of the writers or a bad attempt at figures of speech.

What I'm trying to say is that it doesn't matter if people knew about the Kid itself or not.
All they needed to know - and they did - is that the Citadel itself is the hub for all Mass Relays. We know this from ME1. Not the Catalyst, the Citadel.

Yes - here's some WILD speculation.
Starkid is based on Shepard's mind. Again - it's the kid from his Dreams, it's the Voice of both Shepards (plus).
To me, it stands to reason that whatever this being is, whatever this AI or VI or UI is, it shows itself, non corporeally, to Shepard using images from his own Mind. Using experience from his own mind.
Using language and knowledge that Shepard would understand, from Shepard's own mind.

A Catalyst is a word.
Here's the definition:
-something that causes activity between two or more persons or forces without itself being affected.
-a person or thing that precipitates an event or change: His imprisonment by the government served as the catalyst that helped transform social unrest into revolution.

It's a word. Taken from Shepard's head. A word Shepard knew from his investigations.
The Catalyst is the Citadel. The intelligence which Vengeance speaks of - the one that's inferred rather than observed.
That it resides in the Citadel is a coincidence or, rather, if we are to believe the Prothean's research, fits the pattern that it would be there.

But again, this isn't about magic. It's about something that causes activity between two or more forces, one being the Bomb (Crucible) the other being the Reapers. That's the Mass Relay network, and it's hub, it's API if you will, or a hardware interface - the Citadel.

[Cypher_CS]

Leem_0001 wrote...

In ME3 it is shown that AI is life to be valued, and synthetics and organics can co-exist. Geth and EDI.

Again, that's the point.
In ME3 it is NOT shown.
It is provided for debate, between the Player and the NPCs.
If the Player so chooses, then it is shown that AI is life to be valued.
If the Player so chooses, then it is shown that AI is mockery to be subjugated or destroyed.
etc' etc'

[Leem_0001]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Leem_0001 wrote...

In ME3 it is shown that AI is life to be valued, and synthetics and organics can co-exist. Geth and EDI.

Again, that's the point.
In ME3 it is NOT shown.
It is provided for debate, between the Player and the NPCs.
If the Player so chooses, then it is shown that AI is life to be valued.
If the Player so chooses, then it is shown that AI is mockery to be subjugated or destroyed.
etc' etc'

It is shown - EDI and her love for Joker, developed through ME2 & 3, and the way she bonds with organics. That is shown.
Then there is the Geth, now I know this is a choice as to whether you accept them, but it is shown that they did not simply start killing Quarians. They acted purely out of self defense. They did not want war. This IS shown. Is this not a valued trait of a species?

And surely then an ending should be presented where AI is to be valued, and the independance of if retained, without resorting to slavery (control).

I think we are always going to remain polls apart on this issue. I will reply to your other post seperately, as it still needs to many great leaps to be a coherernt ending.

[Leem_0001]

Damn double post, sorry

Modifié par Leem_0001, 03 mai 2012 - 11:21 .

[ArchLord James]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Leem_0001 wrote...

In ME3 it is shown that AI is life to be valued, and synthetics and organics can co-exist. Geth and EDI.

Again, that's the point.
In ME3 it is NOT shown.
It is provided for debate, between the Player and the NPCs.
If the Player so chooses, then it is shown that AI is life to be valued.
If the Player so chooses, then it is shown that AI is mockery to be subjugated or destroyed.
etc' etc'

Oh really, well I chose that AI is life to be valued. But then bioware shoved the other viewpoint down my throat. I would have rather died fighting (possibly winning conventionally?) than sell out my allies who helped me fight for my own survival. But I didnt get that option. I was forced to view AI as a threat, and I was forced to see them as disposable regardless of what I chose. I choose to value and believe in the AI to helped me fight against the utter extinction of organics of this cycle and their future. Ironically, the geth and EDI were helping me fight against a powerful synthetic force sent to kill organics because it feared those AI helping me would one day rise up and kill me. There goes that circular logic again. Yet another reason why the reaper choice of "AI is a mockery to subjagated or destroyed" is the evil choice. The reapers are an evil self fulfilling prophecy, nothing more.

Cypher you are so consumed by moral relativism that you fail to see any difference between right and wrong. The aggressors and the defenders. Idealism can cause people to justify genocide and other attrocities. To say the writers were trying to send any other message besides the geth were valued life is to really have no comprehension of a storyline. It wasn't even a subtle message, it was very overt/blatant. Sure the player can choose the other alternative and be happy with the ending. But isn't the point of throwing the geth into RED ending to make it so its not just the Ideal ending everybody chooses? Its a downside to anybody who can follow a storyline. If you think AI are not sentient beings you are obviously carrying some preconceived notion into the ME universe, because the ME universe strongly implies otherwise. Pay attention to the game dialogue and I cant see how any other conclusion is possible.

[Tigerman123]

I1 Trust wrote...

Tony0618 wrote...

Orange Tee wrote...

thefallen2far wrote...

To the OP:

Janeaba- wrote...

Velocithon wrote...

Had to do it.... lmao

Guys, guys... that scene.....uh....

Nevermind. <_<

Well you know what they say about fixing stupid

Modifié par Tigerman123, 03 mai 2012 - 11:33 .

[Ieldra]

ardensia wrote...
I was going to make a big, long post, too, but EternalAmbiguity and Cypher_CS already covered it all. +1 to both of you.

Dito. I'll just like them as a preface to my extension:
EternalAmbiguity's reply[url]
[url=http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/11829208/2#11831185]Cypher_CS's reply

I'd just like to add this:

I'm not exactly a "pro-ender" (see the end of this post), but I will defend the final choice.

Control:
It is perfectly possible to play a Shepard for whom it is completely in-character to Control the Reapers. You don't even need to be pro-Cerberus. You just need to play your antagonism with TIM right, taking options that make you look for ways to make him co-operate in the first encounters, and then taking the Renegade options on the Citadel. That way you'll get a Shepard who does exactly NOT go "You are crazy, I'll destroy the Reapers", but gives TIM the benefit of the doubt again and again, only objecting to his methods. Then on the Citadel, you can avoid the Paragon options that would make you say nobody should have that kind of power (which I most passionately disagree wtih). Instead, you choose the Renegade options and say TIM has betrayed humanity and challenge him to either control the Reapers or let him, Shepard go - but TIM can't because he's indoctrinated. 
Also, I never get those annoying lines at the end of the CB "I won't let fear compromise who I am" or that thrice-damned "soul of our species" line it took me so long to find out how to avoid because it's so utterly OOC for all of  my Shepards. 

Synthesis
It's perfectly possible to play a Shepard who'll end up choosing Synthesis, depending on certain interpretations and philosophies you bring into it as the player. The degree of uncertainty is greater here because the exposition is so abysmal, but most of the knee-jerk associations people bring into this - "everyone becomes a husk", "we all end up like the Borg", "It's what the Reapers want" etc. etc...are unsupported by any evidence. It's as if certain people have a visceral aversion to Synthesis and then try to find reasons why it absolutely must be bad. Well, it's bad only if you bring the bad with you into it.
I don't. I find idea of becoming symbiotic organic/synthetic life forms appealing. The game shows that this could be pretty much the way things will go anyway if you make peace between the quarians and the geth. I take the "new DNA" metaphorically.
As for the ethical implications - Shepard has made choices that changed the fate of whole species before. Did you cure the genophage? So.....quite possibly you are now responsible for the next krogan war of conquest, which they will win, thereby causing the extinction of other intelligent species in the galaxy? Why is changing the physical makeup of intelligent life in the galaxy worse than that, worse than causing a Rachni genocide by killing the last queen in ME1? Especially if the changes wrought by Synthesis are heavily implied to be beneficial?

Let's be clear about this:
I hate most of the ending. I hate the lack of closure, I hate the abysmal and nonsensical exposition, of the rationale for the cycle and of Synthesis, which by attempting to "keep it simple" makes complete nonsense of the situation because it can't be explained with this level of "simple". I hate having to destroy galactic civilization and I hate being caught in a luddite's dream at the end, this thrice-damned implication of a dark age. But the final choice and its options, the primary effects of your choice - destroying or controlling the Reapers or combining organic and synthetic life - these are fine.

[Leem_0001]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Indeed, Starkid says "I am the Catalyst".
That's either sloppy fact checking on the part of the writers or a bad attempt at figures of speech.

What I'm trying to say is that it doesn't matter if people knew about the Kid itself or not.
All they needed to know - and they did - is that the Citadel itself is the hub for all Mass Relays. We know this from ME1. Not the Catalyst, the Citadel.

Yes - here's some WILD speculation.
Starkid is based on Shepard's mind. Again - it's the kid from his Dreams, it's the Voice of both Shepards (plus).
To me, it stands to reason that whatever this being is, whatever this AI or VI or UI is, it shows itself, non corporeally, to Shepard using images from his own Mind. Using experience from his own mind.
Using language and knowledge that Shepard would understand, from Shepard's own mind.

A Catalyst is a word.
Here's the definition:
-something that causes activity between two or more persons or forces without itself being affected.
-a person or thing that precipitates an event or change: His imprisonment by the government served as the catalyst that helped transform social unrest into revolution.

It's a word. Taken from Shepard's head. A word Shepard knew from his investigations.
The Catalyst is the Citadel. The intelligence which Vengeance speaks of - the one that's inferred rather than observed.
That it resides in the Citadel is a coincidence or, rather, if we are to believe the Prothean's research, fits the pattern that it would be there.

But again, this isn't about magic. It's about something that causes activity between two or more forces, one being the Bomb (Crucible) the other being the Reapers. That's the Mass Relay network, and it's hub, it's API if you will, or a hardware interface - the Citadel.

Yes, we know that the citadel is the hub, but the citadel itself is not what fires the crucible. The crucible draws energy from it the citadel? Fine. Uses it as a kind of dock? Fine. Uses it to aim its energy? Fine. But we were always told (from earlyish on in ME3) there was something else that was needed, the catalyst they spoke of, to fire the thing. The alliance new that the crucilbe needed to be connected to the citadel, but the citadel is not what makes it fire. So my point about other cycles including this catalyst, which they knew nothing about, being needed to fire remains very much valid and unanswered. 

It is the Starchild that fires it. His AI, programme, or his entity, his will, however you want to describe it. And no one knows about him. He, this being, is the catalyst that is needed to make the gun go boom, so to speak. But no one knows this thing exists so how did they know to include it in the design of the citadel. And please don't resort to explaining words to me, I know perfectly well the meaning behind the word catalyst.

For the record, I have no issue with how the AI / Catalyst presents itself to Shepard, and took it the same as you - it has drawn from a powerful memory that Shep has. I have no issue with what it looks like or how it appears to him. I never argued the point.

[Valkyre4]

Leem_0001 wrote...

Valkyre4 wrote...

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?

Ι will only comment on this since this is what I chose on my first playthrough so this is what I experienced and what I made of it.

And I find this point rather very very easy to refute to be honest...

Yes Shepard spent an entire game questioning Illusive Man's plan to control Reapers. Can you blame him lol? IM has proven time and again that he is simply an opportunist and will not hesitate to do anything. It is not the first time he could lie and deceive Shepard, so why should Shepard believe him in the first place? Yes Shepard convinced him that it is wrong to lose your morality over the matter , and yes it led to him shooting himself.

ON MY PLAYTHROUGH AND STRANGE AEONS.

Other people simply killed IM or chose to even be more willing to hear what he has to say about the whole control plan. So dont assume that everyone moraly denied 100% what IM said and that everyone talked him into suicide.

Even so though, as I said that is how things went in my playthrough as well. I really dont understand what the "oh my God this is insane, stupid and wrong" part of all this is. There is a difference between walking the path and KNOWING the path.

Shepard could question IM plans all he wants. I did too. And that is logical. But Shepard first and foremost :

a) Doesnt know with absolute certainty that what IM CLAIMS to be able to do, is actually going to work. That is what the INDOCTRINATED IM claims.

Exactly because the IM is INDOCTRINATED, no matter what he says, he simply is not to be trusted and HAS TO BE DEALT WITH, one way or the other.

When the Star Child simply tells you and CONFIRMS you that controlling the Reapers IS GOING TO WORK and is going to end the cycle successfully, you no longer question whether this can work or not and you no longer have morality in place . Or.... you actually do... it is YOUR choice to follow that option.... Just because Shepard a few moments ago while dealing with an indoctrinated and certainly not trustworthy IM, chose to tell him the things he told him, doesnt mean that he knew all the facts.

Now, with the Star Child's information he does know. He is certain this is ONE way of ending things successfully. He is also not indoctrinated and he is told that IM was right, but he could never actually do it because he was indoctrinated beyond return.

I really seriously and honestly cannot find where this whole thing seemd wrong to you.....no way.

In ME3 it is shown that AI is life to be valued, and synthetics and organics can co-exist. Geth and EDI. Control is to force a species into slavery. Nowhere in the ME series is slavery seen as a good thing. The topic isn't just brought up in the last 10 minutes of the game, it is delt with throughout the series.

And a lot of people have issue with Shepard trusting what the Starchild tells him too easily. Saren told him that joining the Reapers was the only way to survive. Soverign and Harbinger told him that defying them was futile etc etc. Why is this thing, who controls the reapers, trusted so easiy. Just because it takes the form of a child?

And hypothetically, if the cotnrol ending was an option, maybe a morally wrong one, but it was there. Then why isn't there a morally correct one. The only other options are to fuse all life together, against their will, this removing any diversity. And to destroy all synthetic life, not just the reapers, but the geth and EDI too. We are wiping out an entire species here, who are fighting along side us as allies.

These themes, I'll say again, go directly against the theme of the series (unity in spite of diversity).

And that antithesis is EXACTLY why I find the ending satisfying. At least the way I interpetated it.

Sometimes I dont understand what people who hate Mass Effect 3 ending wanted. If I analyze all their arguments against it (and there are some nice arguments in there dont missunderstand me) and try to rectify them, ME3 ending is going to be the most predictable and boring ending ever....

that is how I feel anyway.

Yes I agree why does Shepard believe the Starkid? Why is what the Catalyst saying to Shepard supposed to be true. More importantly why are we asking these types of questions just when it comes to Mass Effect 3 ending and not every single ending there is out there. It is stupid... it is futile....if we go on about asikng for justifications about every single thing happening in ME3 then it is simply sutpid. As I said why are we asking these types of questions just for ME3? Why are we asking the Catalyst's words and not say the words of every character in every story?

Who is to say that the Ring can only be destroyed in Mount Doom in LOTR? Just because gandalf said it who read from a manuscript? Who is to say that this is the only way? Is there proof presented in a world full of mystical beings, mysteries and magic?

Pretty much in every story you can question whether or not someone is telling you the truth.

So why should ME3 have to stand on trial over this? From your post I would recon that all you wanted is another option of Shepard saying "I will do nothing because I dont trust you". A rather dull and naive option imho that would lead to a dull and boring ending as well.

Also the antithesis is everywhere in ME series. Not just here in the ending. From ME1 all I was hearing was just how bad the Geth are. In ME2 i started having second thoughts but still believed they where the bad guys in general. In ME3 I learned the truth and that i reality the scumbags are the Quarians. That is another antithesis. The same applies to krogan's and the genophage. Antithesis is everywhre and should be that way.

If everything was just as it was from the beggining then the whole journey would be a predictable boring soap opera, and as far as I am concerned I like to question what the story offers me, I like to see the tables turned and to question my previous morality based on new information. Just like I did when I was told to sabotage the genophage cure, just as I was told to kill the geth etc etc.

Illusive Man was right. But he tried to do it the wrong way. AI is a living being through your actions in ME3 and it is a direct proof that not always will it result in the destruction of the Galaxy and Chaos as the Reapers believed. It is in fact the first cycle where that happens, the first cycle where synthetics and organics fight together. The first cycle where a human enters the catalyst. And that alone slim chance is proof enough to the Catalyst (who controls reapers) that their undeniable -so far-claim that synthetics will always lead to Chaos, is wrong. There is always a chance for things to go a different way.

And that is why the Catalyst's "perfect equation" is now questionable and thus not always right. So he decides to end this pattern and presents to Shepard the way to do it so that organics/synthetics/everyone will choose their own path, without the shackles of Reapers and their intervention.

That is my interpertation of the ending and I really enjoyed it.

Modifié par Valkyre4, 03 mai 2012 - 11:37 .

[nitefyre410]

Russalka wrote...

I wish people stopped misusing that gif.

 

Would much prefer this one...  

[robertm2]

decent points but i still dont think the ending was that bad. and honestly i getting tired of everyone saying shepard dies. he doesnt always die, thats just an argument that people use when they want to hate on the ending. play multiplayer get a high ems and choose destroy.

[Ieldra]

ArchLord James wrote...
Cypher you are so consumed by moral relativism that you fail to see any difference between right and wrong. The aggressors and the defenders. Idealism can cause people to justify genocide and other attrocities. To say the writers were trying to send any other message besides the geth were valued life is to really have no comprehension of a storyline. It wasn't even a subtle message, it was very overt/blatant. Sure the player can choose the other alternative and be happy with the ending. But isn't the point of throwing the geth into RED ending to make it so its not just the Ideal ending everybody chooses? Its a downside to anybody who can follow a storyline. If you think AI are not sentient beings you are obviously carrying some preconceived notion into the ME universe, because the ME universe strongly implies otherwise. Pay attention to the game dialogue and I cant see how any other conclusion is possible.

It's not so simple. You can find some rather ominous utterances by synthetics if you pay attention. Most people interpret them away as irony, but what if they aren't?

Also, remember the part where EDI says the quarians' mistake was not to make the geth enough like them? This implies there is an inherent danger in making the geth like they had been - because they're a collective and work together more efficiently by design instead of developing preferences like individuals, they can get both more powerful and less tolerant of individually-organized species. Combine that with the synthetics' built-in ability to self-improve, and you'll get a combination of traits that looks dangerously like something that would justify radical measures to contain.

Lastly, the geth are the most advanced species of the galaxy, and that only 300 years after their creation. If you leave the morality behind for a change and think purely in terms of power dynamics, things are starting to look omnious.

And I haven't even started on the Heretics.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 03 mai 2012 - 11:48 .

[Cypher_CS]

First of all, yes, the Reapers are an evil self fulfilling prophecy. I've stated as much many times, and I think even once in this topic.

Secondly, no I'm not consumed by moral relativism.
I think you're the one that can't see both sides of the coin. You, again, speak of absolutes, or in absolutes.
There are paths you can take in ME where you don't even get to see the origin of the conflict - just kill them all and be done with it.

It's NOT about moral relativism, it's about the choices you have made.
The choices themselves are indeed Moral Relativism, and that's fine. But the consequences are beyond that.

What I get from your complain this time is that you'd like a Destroy ending where EDI and Geth aren't even threatened. Which is, again, fine.
It explains your grievance. But your personal preference doesn't nullify the enjoyment of others, does it?

You started your reply with "Oh really, well I chose".
Great, you chose. Others didn't. Again, that IS the VERY point.

Yes, I get that you're angry the Destroy kills Geth and EDI. And you know what, I concede to that, and say that EDI should survive. But Geth... well, they did choose or you chose for them or whatever actually happens, to get Reaper code upgrades. Makes sense for them to get done in.

No good deed goes unpunished.

And here I will agree, wholeheartedly, that it should have been done better to reflect these choices in the post game epilogue.
Something along the lines of leave Geth as unupgraded automatons, they survive. Upgrade them, and lose them in the aftermath.

Again, my major problem with the endings is the Abruptness.

[Genera1Nemesis]

Leem_0001 wrote...

Cypher_CS wrote...

Leem_0001 wrote...

In ME3 it is shown that AI is life to be valued, and synthetics and organics can co-exist. Geth and EDI.

Again, that's the point.
In ME3 it is NOT shown.
It is provided for debate, between the Player and the NPCs.
If the Player so chooses, then it is shown that AI is life to be valued.
If the Player so chooses, then it is shown that AI is mockery to be subjugated or destroyed.
etc' etc'

It is shown - EDI and her love for Joker, developed through ME2 & 3, and the way she bonds with organics. That is shown.
Then there is the Geth, now I know this is a choice as to whether you accept them, but it is shown that they did not simply start killing Quarians. They acted purely out of self defense. They did not want war. This IS shown. Is this not a valued trait of a species?

And surely then an ending should be presented where AI is to be valued, and the independance of if retained, without resorting to slavery (control).

I think we are always going to remain polls apart on this issue. I will reply to your other post seperately, as it still needs to many great leaps to be a coherernt ending.

I love how people who use the Geth as an example of 'good' AI just choose to ignore the implications of what the Geth Heretics represented. They were trying to kill you thoughout ME1, then tried to kill you in ME2, then you pulled a Hitler on them by either wiping them out or brainwashing them.

Guess what; the Heretics CHOSE to kill organics to gain technology to further themselves. 

Also as an example of choice; go renegade on EDI in every conversation. She sure doesn't look like a saintly AI after all that.

[Ieldra]

ardensia wrote...
I was going to make a big, long post, too, but EternalAmbiguity and Cypher_CS already covered it all. +1 to both of you.

Dito. I'll just link them as a preface to my extension:
EternalAmbiguity's reply
Cypher_CS's reply

I'd just like to add this:

I'm not exactly a "pro-ender" (see the end of this post), but I will defend the final choice.

Control:
It is perfectly possible to play a Shepard for whom it is completely in-character to Control the Reapers. You don't even need to be pro-Cerberus. You just need to play your antagonism with TIM right, taking options that make you look for ways to make him co-operate in the first encounters, and then taking the Renegade options on the Citadel. That way you'll get a Shepard who does exactly NOT go "You are crazy, I'll destroy the Reapers", but gives TIM the benefit of the doubt again and again, only objecting to his methods. Then on the Citadel, you can avoid the Paragon options that would make you say nobody should have that kind of power (which I most passionately disagree wtih). Instead, you choose the Renegade options and say TIM has betrayed humanity and challenge him to either control the Reapers or let him, Shepard go - but TIM can't because he's indoctrinated. 
Also, I never get those annoying lines at the end of the CB "I won't let fear compromise who I am" or that thrice-damned "soul of our species" line it took me so long to find out how to avoid because it's so utterly OOC for all of  my Shepards. 

Synthesis
It's perfectly possible to play a Shepard who'll end up choosing Synthesis, depending on certain interpretations and philosophies you bring into it as the player. The degree of uncertainty is greater here because the exposition is so abysmal, but most of the knee-jerk associations people bring into this - "everyone becomes a husk", "we all end up like the Borg", "It's what the Reapers want" etc. etc...are unsupported by any evidence. It's as if certain people have a visceral aversion to Synthesis and then try to find reasons why it absolutely must be bad. Well, it's bad only if you bring the bad with you into it.
I don't. I find idea of becoming symbiotic organic/synthetic life forms appealing. The game shows that this could be pretty much the way things will go anyway if you make peace between the quarians and the geth. I take the "new DNA" metaphorically.
As for the ethical implications - Shepard has made choices that changed the fate of whole species before. Did you cure the genophage? So.....quite possibly you are now responsible for the next krogan war of conquest, which they will win, thereby causing the extinction of other intelligent species in the galaxy? Why is changing the physical makeup of intelligent life in the galaxy worse than that, worse than causing a Rachni genocide by killing the last queen in ME1? Especially if the changes wrought by Synthesis are heavily implied to be beneficial?

Let's be clear about this:
I hate most of the ending. I hate the lack of closure, I hate the abysmal and nonsensical exposition, of the rationale for the cycle and of Synthesis, which by attempting to "keep it simple" makes complete nonsense of the situation because it can't be explained with this level of "simple". I hate having to destroy galactic civilization and I hate being caught in a luddite's dream at the end, this thrice-damned implication of a dark age. But the final choice and its options, the primary effects of your choice - destroying or controlling the Reapers or combining organic and synthetic life - these are fine.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 03 mai 2012 - 11:49 .