449 réponses à ce sujet

[Cypher_CS]

Ieldra2 wrote...

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.

Good point.
Didn't think of that.
Even though this is explored in other literature and media (Again, Hyperion Cantos).

[Leem_0001]

Valkyre4 wrote...

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.

I haven't read LOTR, but have seen the films, and the difference is that the whole mount doom thing was etablished lore from the beginning of the trilogy. That was the point of the quest, the end game, the main narrative thrust. The lore was not broken. And that is why we are asking these questions in ME3 - it is not stupid or futile. If these questions are not asked in other stories then it is because the themes etc were preserved. A twist ending does not mean alter the whole meaning of the story in the last 10 minutes, it is a shift in narrative that still ties in with the themes of the story. That is what you are missing here, and that is why these things are not thrown up to every story out there.

And I really think you are missing the point. No species was painted as being perfect. Krogan, Geth, etc. Krogans were never painted as outright bad, but they had a hugely troubled histroy. That was the joy of ME, uniting people despite differences. I never, throughout any of the games, took the Krogans as being evil, or outright bad. Wrex remains one of my fav characters in the series.

To build on the story and reveal new things is fine, in fact should be encouraged, especially over a trilogy, but to shift so much of the focus in storytelling and themes in the last 10 minutes, that is just poor. Read any book, or go on any course, regarding storytelling and I promise you will find this to be true.

And yes the Geth were the enemy in ME1, but it was never a question of Organics vs Synthetics, as Saren was their leader. They were simply the enemy. But they had their beliefs and reasons for fighting. Then we found out they were being controlled by the reapers in 2. it was never a case of synthetics vs organics.

To quote you:
'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.'

Slavery was right? Control in any fashion, of a species, is just this, regardless of how it is achieved. And think of the options he gives us - control synthetic, kill them all, or merge everyone together and remove any diversity. Not one of them gives Organics and Synthetics the chance to choose their own path. At all. They are either merged, against their will, with organics, or destroyed completely. The only option would be control, but then we get back to the whole slavery thing. None of these themes were shown as good traits in the ME universe.

Twist endings can be good, as long as they are well thought out and fit with the overall story and themes. Otherwise they come off as cheap, lazy, and unsatisfying. For me, that is what happened with ME3.

[Jassu1979]

"Hi, I am an ancient, godlike being who just happens to look like the dead boy that's been fuelling your nightmares throughout this entire game. Please pay no attention to the fact that the only way for me to know what he looks like is to read your thoughts or otherwise mess with your mind.
Also kindly ignore the fact that I'm in charge of a gigantic flotilla of genocidal sentient spaceships who have been harvesting spacefaring cultures like cattle for countless millions of years. Everything I say is gospel-truth, even if it contradicts everything you've been told before.
Now, would you kindly step over here, so I can prepare three color-coded options for you to pursue?"

[Leem_0001]

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

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.

Yes, the Heritics did present a problem. Just like extremists (of any religion or creed, not just one in particular) do in todays societs. Is it therefore morally right to wipe out that entire group, just because of some of them? Come on man.

And if you go Renegade on anyone, AI or not, they can look pretty aggressive to you. Thats kind of half the point here, how you treat others who are different.

[Cypher_CS]

leem wrote...
And yes the Geth were the enemy in ME1, but it was never a question of Organics vs Synthetics, as Saren was their leader. They were simply the enemy. But they had their beliefs and reasons for fighting. Then we found out they were being controlled by the reapers in 2. it was never a case of synthetics vs organics.

Don't remember where exactly, but the Geth admit to Choosing to side with Saren and the Reapers (maybe it was Legion who said this) - because they believed Sovereign to be some sort of God to them.


Also, I find this repetition of the "It wasn't a theme in ME1" mantra a bit tiring.
No where is it written that a theme must be explicit or even presented in all parts of a series, constantly.

[Calamity]

ArchLord James wrote...

I always realized that the reapers had some motivation for their sick twisted actions. There almost always is some motivation behind genocide. Hell even Hitler had his reasons, that didn't surprise me. And when i heard harbingers taunts of "we are your salvation through destruction" I knew that the reapers motivations were likely going to be some misguided nobility hidden behind faulty logic. However, what I did not expect is for shepard's motivations, shepards cause, and what I believed ME was ultimately going to be about, to be hijacked by the reapers.  Don't you see that by the end of the game, the reapers ends are given more weight/importance and their means are justified? I dont know about you, but my Shepard was fighting against the reapers and trying to stop them not because of their ends, but because of their means of acheiving those ends. Honestly, whatever motivation they had didn't matter to me, because turning people into husks/reapers/brutes/banshees/scions/collectors etc. was abominable and attrocious. Self preservation demanded that we fight the reapers and stop them. I wanted to stop them to preserve the galaxy, the preserve the future of the races of this cycle. That was my theme all along, and it was the one the game alluded to all along. Sure I knew the reapers had their agenda too, but I never expected the final moments of the game to push the reapers agenda ahead of shepards. Basically, in the end of the game, the hero of the entire story is changed from shepard to the catalyst. The catalyst becomes the ultimate force and power for acheiving good (preserving the galaxy) and shepard takes a back seat. The genocides become a necessary evil instead of a horror because the reapers agenda becomes the main focus of the game in the last 5 minutes. For 150 hours we have the limited perspective of shepard who simply wants the reapers destroyed because they kill organics. Then after 150 hours of that, woops haha just kidding, shepard was a fool, the reapers motives are more important than the lives of organics. The reapers are justified in their actions. They simply change their solution because  according to the reapers "[harvesting organics every 50,000 years aka the cycle] wont work anymore." Personally I wanted to see the reapers burn for what they have done. However, the reapers are never brought to justice.

 Perhaps some synthetics during their time got out of control, and this led to their flawed logic and the creation of the cycle. However, isn't their failure to realize that not all cycles and all synthetics are doomed to repeat their mistakes. Aren't the reapers guilty of the ultimate prejudice? That all synthetics will ultimately try to seize power? This fear mongering justifies genocide? Do the reapers believe in some form of FATE? WHy cant they realize things can change? Perhaps because their programming and the catalyst are set in their ways/beliefs? Those were the questions I asked myself, that was my theme. Unfortunately, the BW decided to force the reapers narrow sided viewpoints on me and offer little explanation as to why. We find out our survival was misguided, all that matters is what the reapers are afraid of. And shepard agrees in the end. Regardless of their motives, they have just become an evil force who come to erradicate a cycle even when their signs that contradict their beliefs.  Sure its a tragedy that they were too strong to be stopped, but I would rather go down fighting them if thats the story, than become complicit in their "solutions."

No I didnt want a "happy ending." I really don't know anybody who did. I was expecting shepard and possibly the whole normandy and crew to be sacrificed. But I thought the sacrifice would have more meaning than a token gesture from the reapers.

I know it has been said before but I just want to reiterate. If the god child thing was so concerned about organics being wiped out by synthetics, why didnt his solution instead include wiping out the synthetics? If they can watch organics and know when they are becoming advanced enough to build synthetics that can eventually wipe out all organic life, why cant they do the same (I would think it would be easier) to keep an eye on synthetics over time...To me the horror of liquifying organics to make a reaper because eventually those organics might make synthetics to wipe out organics just doesnt make sense. Why not just wait and watch synthetics if god child thing is so protective over organic life?

[Leem_0001]

Cypher_CS wrote...

leem wrote...
And yes the Geth were the enemy in ME1, but it was never a question of Organics vs Synthetics, as Saren was their leader. They were simply the enemy. But they had their beliefs and reasons for fighting. Then we found out they were being controlled by the reapers in 2. it was never a case of synthetics vs organics.

Don't remember where exactly, but the Geth admit to Choosing to side with Saren and the Reapers (maybe it was Legion who said this) - because they believed Sovereign to be some sort of God to them.


Also, I find this repetition of the "It wasn't a theme in ME1" mantra a bit tiring.
No where is it written that a theme must be explicit or even presented in all parts of a series, constantly.

Yes, some follow Seran and the Reapers because of that. Not all of them though. That just means they have diversity within themselves. We have the same here on this planet.

If you find it tiring then that is up to you, but if the issue is not delt with enough then how does it go on to become a theme?

Don't think we will ever meet in the middle here, and it's great that you are happy with the endings, but I am hoping that Bioware do offer those dissapointed something to give the series the closure it deserves. I can't see additional content to what is already there doing that, but I will give it a chance.

Modifié par Leem_0001, 03 mai 2012 - 12:11 .

[Cypher_CS]

That's not what I said, Leem.
I see people talking about it not being a theme in ME1 (it is, but minor, foreshadowing) - yet it is a full theme in both ME2 and ME3.
But their argument is based on ME1 not having that theme (supposedly).

That's what I find tiring.

[Leem_0001]

Cypher_CS wrote...

That's not what I said, Leem.
I see people talking about it not being a theme in ME1 (it is, but minor, foreshadowing) - yet it is a full theme in both ME2 and ME3.
But their argument is based on ME1 not having that theme (supposedly).

That's what I find tiring.

It's just Lee,
Could you explain? Do you mean organics vs Synthetics not being a theme in ME1? If it could be seen as minor, then I could see how you would think that. I wouldn't agree personally, but still.

But organics Vs synthetics is not, I don't think, a theme in ME2 or ME3. As you have Legion on your team, in your squad. Your ship is controlled by an AI. And we learn not all Geth follow the Reapers. This is just ME2.

[Genera1Nemesis]

Leem_0001 wrote...

Cypher_CS wrote...

That's not what I said, Leem.
I see people talking about it not being a theme in ME1 (it is, but minor, foreshadowing) - yet it is a full theme in both ME2 and ME3.
But their argument is based on ME1 not having that theme (supposedly).

That's what I find tiring.

It's just Lee,
Could you explain? Do you mean organics vs Synthetics not being a theme in ME1? If it could be seen as minor, then I could see how you would think that. I wouldn't agree personally, but still.

But organics Vs synthetics is not, I don't think, a theme in ME2 or ME3. As you have Legion on your team, in your squad. Your ship is controlled by an AI. And we learn not all Geth follow the Reapers. This is just ME2.

These are just a few examples of Ai being alright, and yeah, sure you're right that there are some friendly AI thoughout Mass Effect. The point is that it only takes ONE AI to evolve itself to the point where it could take control of virtually anything synthetic. Cerberus was constantly building newer, better AI despite the laws in place against it, and even Legion said of the Geth that he 'didn't know' how the Geth would react when they finished their Dysons Sphere and connected all their minds into a singular voice. 

Go look up technological singularity, and you will see that it is more than a theory, but a completely real threat even in our real world.

[Valkyre4]

Jassu1979 wrote...

"Hi, I am an ancient, godlike being who just happens to look like the dead boy that's been fuelling your nightmares throughout this entire game. Please pay no attention to the fact that the only way for me to know what he looks like is to read your thoughts or otherwise mess with your mind.
Also kindly ignore the fact that I'm in charge of a gigantic flotilla of genocidal sentient spaceships who have been harvesting spacefaring cultures like cattle for countless millions of years. Everything I say is gospel-truth, even if it contradicts everything you've been told before.
Now, would you kindly step over here, so I can prepare three color-coded options for you to pursue?"

" Hi, my name is Sovereign and I am a sentient million years old synthetic/organic/GODlike creature that resembles a squid...

I can poison your mind, control you and do to you everything I want. I do not need to explain my motives to you, for you are a pathetic puny little organic while I am of immensly higher intelligence and , thus, my reasoning will never be compreheneded by you. I want to bring over my friends through a portal so that we kill you all. Why? Because f** you that is why!"

If you want to present Mass Effect as being a stupid mess of plotholes and unrealistic, ilogical motivations/events then I suggest you start doing so by the first game, not the 3rd. Like I did just above....

People started to find unrealistic and ilogical stuff only in ME3 when in fact the whole series is SCI DAMN FI and full of fantastical elements that are never explain logically or thoroughly...

[Cypher_CS]

Having a theme of Organic vs. Synthetics doesn't mean you have to be at odds with them.
On the contrary, you can best show a point by presenting a counter point.

The theme is there. Always. Be they your friends or not.

If your statement was true, then you could have applied it to Cerberus.
Asking something along the lines of "why is there Cerberus, if Humans vs. Aliens is not a theme?" - because, according to your above statement (yes, I exaggerate a bit), we have Tali and Garrus and Wrex and Grunt and Liara and Javik in your squad.

[Jenonax]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Alright, I'm headed to bed, so I'll respond to this before I go. Warning: looooong.

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.

And yet, Reapers are organic/synthetic constructs and the Geth heretics only joined up with Sovereign because they thought it would help them survive against the Organics that wanted them dead.  Legion's loyalty mission states that the other Geth don't want to go to war and it would be preferential to live in peace with their creators.  So, no, you are wrong on this.

[Leem_0001]

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

Leem_0001 wrote...

Cypher_CS wrote...

That's not what I said, Leem.
I see people talking about it not being a theme in ME1 (it is, but minor, foreshadowing) - yet it is a full theme in both ME2 and ME3.
But their argument is based on ME1 not having that theme (supposedly).

That's what I find tiring.

It's just Lee,
Could you explain? Do you mean organics vs Synthetics not being a theme in ME1? If it could be seen as minor, then I could see how you would think that. I wouldn't agree personally, but still.

But organics Vs synthetics is not, I don't think, a theme in ME2 or ME3. As you have Legion on your team, in your squad. Your ship is controlled by an AI. And we learn not all Geth follow the Reapers. This is just ME2.

These are just a few examples of Ai being alright, and yeah, sure you're right that there are some friendly AI thoughout Mass Effect. The point is that it only takes ONE AI to evolve itself to the point where it could take control of virtually anything synthetic. Cerberus was constantly building newer, better AI despite the laws in place against it, and even Legion said of the Geth that he 'didn't know' how the Geth would react when they finished their Dysons Sphere and connected all their minds into a singular voice. 

Go look up technological singularity, and you will see that it is more than a theory, but a completely real threat even in our real world.

I'm aware of the technological singularity - and it states that once AI is achieved, there is no way of knowing how it will react etc. And we have no way of determining what will happen from then on.

In this universe, the ficitonal ME universe, howevre - AI has been achieved. And in case shown itself to be able to co-exist. It all works within the lore of the game.

Don't forget, in the lore of the ME universe, Krogans and Rachnni went pretty postal too. I don't consider this reason that all Krogan or Rachnni need to be exterminated (or all organics for that matter).

[Leem_0001]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Having a theme of Organic vs. Synthetics doesn't mean you have to be at odds with them.
On the contrary, you can best show a point by presenting a counter point.

The theme is there. Always. Be they your friends or not.

If your statement was true, then you could have applied it to Cerberus.
Asking something along the lines of "why is there Cerberus, if Humans vs. Aliens is not a theme?" - because, according to your above statement (yes, I exaggerate a bit), we have Tali and Garrus and Wrex and Grunt and Liara and Javik in your squad.

But I don not see the theme of the ME series to be Humans Vs Aliens. At all. The whole point was to unify and live as one, accepting each others differences. Overcoming past prejudices.

Maybe its in the termanology, and in calling it organics vs synthetics etc. If it was more - do they need to be at war, or can they coexist, then fair enough. Because then I would argue that the ME series has proven (all within its own lore, you understand) that they can co exist. Humans & Aliens and organcis & synthetics. This is the issue with the endings I have. If you don't chose to enslave the reapers, then the only choice you have is to destroy all synthetics, or merge everyone together and remove any diversity.

[Leem_0001]

Anyway, I have to bid you all farewell for the day - it has been fun debating. Looks like many of us will never reach a middle ground on the endings here, which is no issue to be honest.

Unity in diversity, and all that

[Seerezaro]

Valkyre4 wrote...

Jassu1979 wrote...

"Hi, I am an ancient, godlike being who just happens to look like the dead boy that's been fuelling your nightmares throughout this entire game. Please pay no attention to the fact that the only way for me to know what he looks like is to read your thoughts or otherwise mess with your mind.
Also kindly ignore the fact that I'm in charge of a gigantic flotilla of genocidal sentient spaceships who have been harvesting spacefaring cultures like cattle for countless millions of years. Everything I say is gospel-truth, even if it contradicts everything you've been told before.
Now, would you kindly step over here, so I can prepare three color-coded options for you to pursue?"

" Hi, my name is Sovereign and I am a sentient million years old synthetic/organic/GODlike creature that resembles a squid...

I can poison your mind, control you and do to you everything I want. I do not need to explain my motives to you, for you are a pathetic puny little organic while I am of immensly higher intelligence and , thus, my reasoning will never be compreheneded by you. I want to bring over my friends through a portal so that we kill you all. Why? Because f** you that is why!"

If you want to present Mass Effect as being a stupid mess of plotholes and unrealistic, ilogical motivations/events then I suggest you start doing so by the first game, not the 3rd. Like I did just above....

People started to find unrealistic and ilogical stuff only in ME3 when in fact the whole series is SCI DAMN FI and full of fantastical elements that are never explain logically or thoroughly...

Sci-fi is defined as partially unrealistic/partially plausible, so your right in that part.

The plothole you stated is not a plothole at all, and makes me wonder if you understand the meaning of "plothole".

An alien being with motives beyond your comprehension and doesn't feel like trying to explain it to you is not a plothole in fact its the actual plot of several written works.  Thats the point.  Go to tvtropes and look up Blue and Orange Morality if you want something more detailed or a list of works that do just such a thing.

Someone forgot to tell the writers of ME3 that whenever you do something like that the worst possible thing you can do is actually explain the motives.

[Cypher_CS]

No Lee,

This argument has been tried before.
It's not about "as soon as you achieve AI", it's about Sooner or Later.

I'll again give the example of the Hyperion Cantos.
Where the TechnoCore, the society of AIs had factions that wanted to build a UI. Other factions believed that the UI (Ultimate), once built, will destroy Humanity and the other AIs.
Note also that even the pro UI faction in the TechnoCore were aware of this clause in the creation of the UI, and they wanted this to happen.

And as I suggested in another thread of mine (http://social.biowar.../index/11786603), this destruction of Humanity or Organics, doesn't even have to be physical extinction.

[Cypher_CS]

Seerezaro wrote...

Someone forgot to tell the writers of ME3 that whenever you do something like that the worst possible thing you can do is actually explain the motives.

I think they done a fair job of not explaining everything.
Just making it cryptic enough. A failed attempt at explanation, which fits damn well.

But you are, of course, dead right.

[2484Stryker]

thefallen2far wrote...

To the OP:

Janeaba- wrote...

Velocithon wrote...

[Leem_0001]

Cypher_CS wrote...

No Lee,

This argument has been tried before.
It's not about "as soon as you achieve AI", it's about Sooner or Later.

I'll again give the example of the Hyperion Cantos.
Where the TechnoCore, the society of AIs had factions that wanted to build a UI. Other factions believed that the UI (Ultimate), once built, will destroy Humanity and the other AIs.
Note also that even the pro UI faction in the TechnoCore were aware of this clause in the creation of the UI, and they wanted this to happen.

And as I suggested in another thread of mine (http://social.biowar.../index/11786603), this destruction of Humanity or Organics, doesn't even have to be physical extinction.

I really have to go now but I never once said 'as soon as you achieve AI'. All I said was that the technological singularity theory dicates that when AI is achieved, we have no literal way of knowing what will happen. That is all.

ME is a work of fiction and so I then referenced the ME series as having its own lore, and what we had seen over the course of the game.

And now you are referencing Hyperion Cantos, a fictional series from the late 80s / early 90s as some sort of proof of something?

Anyway, adios for today.

[tMc Tallgeese]

"All of the questions you raise are intimately affected by the hundreds of decisions regarding characters, history, and civilization that the player's Shepard makes over the course of the three games. Any authorial dictation as to how these played out would be unable to adequately accomodate for the vast array of choices made throughout the game.

They clearly hint that there are immense challenges to be overcome, but they also, through much of the dialogue that others have mentioned and game lore, hint that it is possible for a united galaxy to overcome these challenges (building new relays, quantuum entaglement, Quarian liveships, vast number of garden worlds like Eden Prime in nearby Alliance space, etc.). Exactly how depends on your Shepard and the decisions they have made on a microscopic scale. Essentially, BioWare left the player with the freedom to answer the question, "what would the galaxy that my Shepard shaped do from here on?"

The possibility of an ending like Dragon Age: Origins' is precluded by the vast number of choices that would have to be accomodated for. This left BioWare with three options:

Completely deprive the player's actions of any meaning and write in an ending that happens in an exact sequence no matter what the player has done.

Try to write in multiple endings, but be unable to account for everything and have many playthroughs receive an ending that does not follow logically from the decisions their Shepard has made

Bring the game to a common critical point where the efforts of the player are recognized and the primary goal is accomplished, but rather than concluding in an authoritative manner, hand the epilogue entirely over to the players for speculation.

In my mind, Choice 3 is the choice that most reflects BioWare's dedication to both the story that they were telling and the fans who made Mass Effect possible. And that's precisely what they did. It provides the largest amount of respect for the authority and intelligence of your fanbase, and properly recognizes the significance of the choices made by everyone's character."

You sir have made one of the best arguments for the ending I've seen. To me, science fiction is supposed to ask the question of its audience,"What happens if....?" though not provide a clear cut answer. The genre expects its audience to use their own thinking and belief system to answer those questions so that the story you've been reading, watching, or playing is personalized by each member of the audience. Consider for a moment any of the great science fiction universes created in the last 50+ years, each asks a question, but they leave it up to the audience to inject their own morals and values into the story to personally enrich it. Battlestar Galactica, Blade Runner (and the book that I cannot think of its title), and Star Trek all pose questions that we must answer for ourselves because there is no clear cut answer and that my friends is the best kind of story to be a part of. BioWare has delivered this to us in the form of Mass Effect.

[Valkyre4]

Leem_0001 wrote...

[

I haven't read LOTR, but have seen the films, and the difference is that the whole mount doom thing was etablished lore from the beginning of the trilogy. That was the point of the quest, the end game, the main narrative thrust. The lore was not broken. And that is why we are asking these questions in ME3 - it is not stupid or futile. If these questions are not asked in other stories then it is because the themes etc were preserved. A twist ending does not mean alter the whole meaning of the story in the last 10 minutes, it is a shift in narrative that still ties in with the themes of the story. That is what you are missing here, and that is why these things are not thrown up to every story out there.

And I really think you are missing the point. No species was painted as being perfect. Krogan, Geth, etc. Krogans were never painted as outright bad, but they had a hugely troubled histroy. That was the joy of ME, uniting people despite differences. I never, throughout any of the games, took the Krogans as being evil, or outright bad. Wrex remains one of my fav characters in the series.

To build on the story and reveal new things is fine, in fact should be encouraged, especially over a trilogy, but to shift so much of the focus in storytelling and themes in the last 10 minutes, that is just poor. Read any book, or go on any course, regarding storytelling and I promise you will find this to be true.

And yes the Geth were the enemy in ME1, but it was never a question of Organics vs Synthetics, as Saren was their leader. They were simply the enemy. But they had their beliefs and reasons for fighting. Then we found out they were being controlled by the reapers in 2. it was never a case of synthetics vs organics.

Slavery was right? Control in any fashion, of a species, is just this, regardless of how it is achieved. And think of the options he gives us - control synthetic, kill them all, or merge everyone together and remove any diversity. Not one of them gives Organics and Synthetics the chance to choose their own path. At all. They are either merged, against their will, with organics, or destroyed completely. The only option would be control, but then we get back to the whole slavery thing. None of these themes were shown as good traits in the ME universe.

Twist endings can be good, as long as they are well thought out and fit with the overall story and themes. Otherwise they come off as cheap, lazy, and unsatisfying. For me, that is what happened with ME3.

Really Bioware's Social network quoting is HIDEOUS.... i erased most of the previous conversations because it is just stupid lol

Did I ever in any part of my post said that some species was presented as "perfect" If one was, then that was the Reapers presented perfect by the... Reapers. I get the point perfectly fine. I just dont share your interpetation of what the ending meant or was supposed to mean. You focused on words such as slavery when I already explained to you that exactly because of that option I chose controling the Reapers who in fact where the ones repeating a cycle where every advanced species dies. If someone was a slave that was the entire galaxy, who was a slave to the Reaper cycle. So yeah, I will control the Reapers and I wont feel guilty about doing it so to a species that enslaved me in the first place. I am not controling every species out there, I am just doing what I have to do to end the Repaer threat and everyone can go on from there choosing their own destiny as to how things will unfold. Why are you saying that organics and synthetics do not choose their path via these options? That is exactly what controling reapers did. Everything is possible for the first time.

Perhaps the Geth do finally attack humans in the future and everything is destroyed like Reapers cliamed all the time. Perhpas my actions during the ME saga as Shepard made a difference (and I believe they did a HUGE difference) and for the first time a peacefull coexistence of organics and synthetics is possible.

I would never choose synthesis because morally i do not agree with. I would also never choose destroying all synthetic life because that again is against my morality. The control option was pretty much the only thing I agreed with from the very beggining.

Yes it was never a case synthetics VS organics as far as what the player was TOLD. The player was never told of the Reapers plans. And when he asked he was always told he WOULD NEVER COMPREHEND. Remember Ilos? Vigil? The talk with sovereign and Hardbinger? Everyone says you cant understand their plan and when their plan is finally unvieled with the Catalyst they are pretty much proven right.

The Reapers have witnessed countless cycles where every single one of them reaches a point where Chaos destroys everything. That moment is the birth of synthetics and the evolution of them, leading to war with organics and chaos. Reapers logic (they are also a synthetic) is not the same as a human one. They see this problem through raw numbers. Having witnessed the same pattern over and over again through time they decide that their way to control the situation is to wipe out all techonologically advanced species and save the less advanced ones, so that life goes on. They even store old species in reaper form. To the Reapers this pattern is irreversible, impossible to prevent, it is something like "destiny" to them, a factor that can never be altered or changed. That is why their resolve is so fast and so strict. The birth of synthetic A.I in each cycle, marks the beggining of Reaper preparations to invade and reset the cycle. In our Mass Effect story, Geth are the said A.I. and if you think about it, Geth are only 300 years old and yet they are the most advanced race already. So, Reapers would again be correct this time, if it wasnt for Shepard and the choices he made through the game.

Again Reapers saw for the first time that synthetics and organics can actually make it work. That is an unprecedented event in all those countless cycles. But even that slight chance proves their theory and their solution to the problem wrong. So the Catalyst gives Shepard the option to give his solution.

The whole Mass Effect saga was synthtics VS organics. The fact that the player did not fully know until the end, doesnt mean that it wasnt thought out this way from the very beggining. In fact go back and listen to the dialogues with Sovereign from ME1 and Ilos and you will see that ME3's star child dialogues and Javik's ones seem very though out and they are connected nicely together.

Again this is how I experienced Mass Effect saga. And I am glad I did because I could easily be the one leading the hate bandawagon. Remember I am not criticising people who dont like the ending. I am just glad that my experience was different and perhaps I was part of the lucky few that they really enjoyed this. I could go and nitpick the game but trying to make myself hate the ending is not a normal thing to do.

Still the ending was far from perfect when it involves its presentations and not letting you see what happened with your crew etc. It could be done better and the extended cut is going hopefully to give me those bits and pieces to enjoy it even more.

[Calamity]

Calamity wrote...

ArchLord James wrote...

I always realized that the reapers had some motivation for their sick twisted actions. There almost always is some motivation behind genocide. Hell even Hitler had his reasons, that didn't surprise me. And when i heard harbingers taunts of "we are your salvation through destruction" I knew that the reapers motivations were likely going to be some misguided nobility hidden behind faulty logic. However, what I did not expect is for shepard's motivations, shepards cause, and what I believed ME was ultimately going to be about, to be hijacked by the reapers.  Don't you see that by the end of the game, the reapers ends are given more weight/importance and their means are justified? I dont know about you, but my Shepard was fighting against the reapers and trying to stop them not because of their ends, but because of their means of acheiving those ends. Honestly, whatever motivation they had didn't matter to me, because turning people into husks/reapers/brutes/banshees/scions/collectors etc. was abominable and attrocious. Self preservation demanded that we fight the reapers and stop them. I wanted to stop them to preserve the galaxy, the preserve the future of the races of this cycle. That was my theme all along, and it was the one the game alluded to all along. Sure I knew the reapers had their agenda too, but I never expected the final moments of the game to push the reapers agenda ahead of shepards. Basically, in the end of the game, the hero of the entire story is changed from shepard to the catalyst. The catalyst becomes the ultimate force and power for acheiving good (preserving the galaxy) and shepard takes a back seat. The genocides become a necessary evil instead of a horror because the reapers agenda becomes the main focus of the game in the last 5 minutes. For 150 hours we have the limited perspective of shepard who simply wants the reapers destroyed because they kill organics. Then after 150 hours of that, woops haha just kidding, shepard was a fool, the reapers motives are more important than the lives of organics. The reapers are justified in their actions. They simply change their solution because  according to the reapers "[harvesting organics every 50,000 years aka the cycle] wont work anymore." Personally I wanted to see the reapers burn for what they have done. However, the reapers are never brought to justice.

 

I know it has been said before but I just want to reiterate. If the god child thing was so concerned about organics being wiped out by synthetics, why didnt his solution instead include wiping out the synthetics? If they can watch organics and know when they are becoming advanced enough to build synthetics that can eventually wipe out all organic life, why cant they do the same (I would think it would be easier) to keep an eye on synthetics over time...To me the horror of liquifying organics to make a reaper because eventually those organics might make synthetics to wipe out organics just doesnt make sense. Why not just wait and watch synthetics if god child thing is so protective over organic life?

Someone who is justifying the endings...please comment on this because I would really like to get your viewpoint. I've made piece with the ending but I still really hate it so I just play MP now instead. But I would still like this cleared up?

Thanks for response.

Modifié par Calamity, 03 mai 2012 - 12:56 .

[Valkyre4]

Seerezaro wrote...

Valkyre4 wrote...

Jassu1979 wrote...

"Hi, I am an ancient, godlike being who just happens to look like the dead boy that's been fuelling your nightmares throughout this entire game. Please pay no attention to the fact that the only way for me to know what he looks like is to read your thoughts or otherwise mess with your mind.
Also kindly ignore the fact that I'm in charge of a gigantic flotilla of genocidal sentient spaceships who have been harvesting spacefaring cultures like cattle for countless millions of years. Everything I say is gospel-truth, even if it contradicts everything you've been told before.
Now, would you kindly step over here, so I can prepare three color-coded options for you to pursue?"

" Hi, my name is Sovereign and I am a sentient million years old synthetic/organic/GODlike creature that resembles a squid...

I can poison your mind, control you and do to you everything I want. I do not need to explain my motives to you, for you are a pathetic puny little organic while I am of immensly higher intelligence and , thus, my reasoning will never be compreheneded by you. I want to bring over my friends through a portal so that we kill you all. Why? Because f** you that is why!"

If you want to present Mass Effect as being a stupid mess of plotholes and unrealistic, ilogical motivations/events then I suggest you start doing so by the first game, not the 3rd. Like I did just above....

People started to find unrealistic and ilogical stuff only in ME3 when in fact the whole series is SCI DAMN FI and full of fantastical elements that are never explain logically or thoroughly...

Sci-fi is defined as partially unrealistic/partially plausible, so your right in that part.

The plothole you stated is not a plothole at all, and makes me wonder if you understand the meaning of "plothole".

An alien being with motives beyond your comprehension and doesn't feel like trying to explain it to you is not a plothole in fact its the actual plot of several written works.  Thats the point.  Go to tvtropes and look up Blue and Orange Morality if you want something more detailed or a list of works that do just such a thing.

Someone forgot to tell the writers of ME3 that whenever you do something like that the worst possible thing you can do is actually explain the motives.

And somehow you just lost the main point of my post which was to show that if I want to present something from ME3 as ridiculous as the friend above did, then you can be sure that I can also do it for all games wether it is Mass Effect 1 or any game/story in general.

Finding ridiculous to accept the notion of a "star child" in a videogame like Mass Effect and having no issues whatsoever with the notion of sapient machines who resemble squids and poison the minds just because they can, is just plain naive and dumb.

As much as the starchild is ridiculous the same goes for reapers. Its a sci fi and both represent it equally. Just because Reapers sound badass , but the representation of Catalyst doesnt suit your taste, doesnt make it ridiculous.

And besides the Catalyst himself said that he took this form simply to look like something familiar to Shepard. For all we know the Catalyst has "no form". It is something Godlike something we dont know.

Modifié par Valkyre4, 03 mai 2012 - 01:04 .