449 réponses à ce sujet

[Roblah]

i wish i lived in America so i could ride my bike down to bioware and throw poo at them as they walk out the building

[tMc Tallgeese]

It seems to me that this individual is inserting their own morality into the Reapers and their goals. The important thing to remember about the Catalyst and the Reapers is that they have no moral code. It is not genocide to them because they are preserving the advanced species as one of them to ensure that civilization's legacy.
While the trilogy leads you down Shepard's path towards a final confrontation with the Catalyst, it never takes Shepard out of the "hero" role in the closing moments. This reasoning is based on the fact that Shepard actually becomes the "Catalyst" for change him/herself. Shepard is the ultimate arbiter of the galaxy's fate and is given a choice between controlling this power, destroying it, or by the introduction of the Crucible creating a new way of life for all in the universe that would take it in new and undiscovered paths.
As for the Starchild's choice to use the Reaper solution, it is to preserve the balance of the galaxy without allowing organic life to become evolved to such a point that they could potentially wipe themselves out. It is not necessarily the case that this could happen, however, the possibility exists and it's probability has been calculated as high enough to justify the Reapers existence.

[Cypher_CS]

Leem_0001 wrote...

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.

Why the absolutes?
It's not proof of anything. It's additional reference material to understand a concept.

Again, Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Abscence - just cause the ME lore has several first generation AIs that are benign, doesn't mean a malevolent one will not show up, as was explored in other media.
You don't have evidence to show that it will not come to past.

However, you do have evidence, in the form of the VIs and their backstories, that true AI research is prohibited - because some wars already happened.
And I just realized that we somehow all forgot this little tidbit of information....

[FatalX7.0]

xsdob wrote...

Why should anyone take this challenge?

Because it's a challenge and it calls to you.

[incinerator950]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Leem_0001 wrote...

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.

Why the absolutes?
It's not proof of anything. It's additional reference material to understand a concept.

Again, Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Abscence - just cause the ME lore has several first generation AIs that are benign, doesn't mean a malevolent one will not show up, as was explored in other media.
You don't have evidence to show that it will not come to past.

However, you do have evidence, in the form of the VIs and their backstories, that true AI research is prohibited - because some wars already happened.
And I just realized that we somehow all forgot this little tidbit of information....

Don't worry, we're all losing brain cells over this, sadly.

[Cypher_CS]

Actually, the brain is a muscle, the more you work it, the better it becomes.
Don't think we lose anything from debating this.

[AlexXIV]

Cypher_CS wrote...

I tend to...?
Really?
How did I take this out of context?

Again, how do you not see that you stick to the same mantra of some specific motivations or intentions of Shepard?
Saying that either you don't get the the other themes, or that they shouldn't be there.

Again, it's YOUR CHOICE.
Pick the one that suits you.

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

Not as the hero maybe but as decision maker. Basically what ever was on Shep's mind, Starkid denies it and instead gives his solutions. The cycles were his solution and now the new choices are again his solution because whether Shepard believes in this sythetics vs organics ideology or not, the starkid just imposes that it is the ultimate truth. A truth that Shepard has alot of reason to disagree with. So who saves the day? Starkid, since 1,000,000,000 BC (or longer). It not only excuses the genocidal ideology, it also forces it on you. That's a tough cookie to swallow for alot of people.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 03 mai 2012 - 01:21 .

[AlexXIV]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Actually, the brain is a muscle, the more you work it, the better it becomes.
Don't think we lose anything from debating this.

Exactly. Not that the brain is a muscle, but it is the same concept. Train it and it improves.

[Valkyre4]

AlexXIV wrote...

Cypher_CS wrote...

I tend to...?
Really?
How did I take this out of context?

Again, how do you not see that you stick to the same mantra of some specific motivations or intentions of Shepard?
Saying that either you don't get the the other themes, or that they shouldn't be there.

Again, it's YOUR CHOICE.
Pick the one that suits you.

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

Not as the hero maybe but as decision maker. Basically what ever was on Shep's mind, Starkid denies it and instead gives his solutions. The cycles were his solution and now the new choices are again his solution because whether Shepard believes in this sythetics vs organics ideology or not, the starkid just imposes that it is the ultimate truth. A truth that Shepard has alot of reason to disagree with. So who saves the day? Starkid, since 1,000,000,000 BC (ot longer). It not only excuses the genocidal ideology, it also forces it on you. That's a tough cookie to swallow for alot of people.

Using that logic, most choices in Mass Effect are actually dictated by other characters.

The outcome of Genophage is not your choice but the councelor's, Wrex's and Mordin's.

The outcome of ME and who is going to be on the Council is not yours but the counsils that presents you its 2 candidates.

The outcome of the geth war is not yours but Tali's and Legion's who presented you with the options.

I do not agree with what you are saying. The option is Shepard's. the fact that these options are presented by someone else is nothing different than what happened throughout the series.

[AlexXIV]

Valkyre4 wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Cypher_CS wrote...

I tend to...?
Really?
How did I take this out of context?

Again, how do you not see that you stick to the same mantra of some specific motivations or intentions of Shepard?
Saying that either you don't get the the other themes, or that they shouldn't be there.

Again, it's YOUR CHOICE.
Pick the one that suits you.

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

Not as the hero maybe but as decision maker. Basically what ever was on Shep's mind, Starkid denies it and instead gives his solutions. The cycles were his solution and now the new choices are again his solution because whether Shepard believes in this sythetics vs organics ideology or not, the starkid just imposes that it is the ultimate truth. A truth that Shepard has alot of reason to disagree with. So who saves the day? Starkid, since 1,000,000,000 BC (ot longer). It not only excuses the genocidal ideology, it also forces it on you. That's a tough cookie to swallow for alot of people.

Using that logic, most choices in Mass Effect are actually dictated by other characters.

The outcome of Genophage is not your choice but the councelor's, Wrex's and Mordin's.

The outcome of ME and who is going to be on the Council is not yours but the counsils that presents you its 2 candidates.

The outcome of the geth war is not yours but Tali's and Legion's who presented you with the options.

I do not agree with what you are saying. The option is Shepard's. the fact that these options are presented by someone else is nothing different than what happened throughout the series.

The difference is that I agreed with the choices. Meaning they were as well mine. That's what wrong with the ending of ME3. Most people probably disagree with the Starchild but have to accept it. If it was at least so that the Starchild defeats Shepard and as a winner dictates the options, then it is one thing. But putting it like it's Shepard's choice is really bad. Shepard has no choice in this ending. And it basically doesn't matter what you choose. One is as bad as the other. The problem is not that choices are forced on us, but which choices. For example in our society you have alot of choices and most people agree with it. They feel free. If someone replaced them with choices most people would disagree with it would still be the same concept of you having choices that are ultimately dictated, but you would not feel free. Because you hate them.

[Joeybsmooth4]

Sh0dan wrote...

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

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


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

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

[AlexXIV]

Hm the less the player knows, the better. Is that the consens of the ending-likers? Because then I understand why it is great. The only way to make it greater would be to cut all dialogue because then we know even less.

[Cypher_CS]

Joeybsmooth4 wrote...

Sh0dan wrote...

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

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


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

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

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

[Valkyre4]

AlexXIV wrote...

Hm the less the player knows, the better. Is that the consens of the ending-likers? Because then I understand why it is great. The only way to make it greater would be to cut all dialogue because then we know even less.

Why are you trying so desperately to prove that if someone even remotely enjoys the endiing it is because he simply knows little or doesnt understand?

Relax, it is called taste and it is how people interpet things in other ways. I explained myself in my previous posts in this very thread, throughly as to how I experienced the end, you are free to read them and not agree with them. just dont go out and say that I enjoyed the ending because I did not understand it or because i imagined things that werent there.

[QuantumSheep13]

The fan-****** is strong in this thread.

[Eire Icon]

First off I just want to say I actually don't like the endings but I disagree with allot of the criticisms around them. There's allot of good points in this thread so I'm going to try and not rehash what has already been said.

I think the most important point however is below:

Sisterofshane wrote...

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

Why would I accept the Catalyst's logic?

The simple answer here is it doesn't make any sense not too. The Catalyst has no reason to lie. Earth is about to fall, the fleets are being destroyed, and left unchecked the Reapers will win the war applying the Catalysts solution to the Chaos.Shepard simply has no option but to accept his logic. Bioware has always said Shepard has choice to a point, and in explanation of this they have used the example "For example Shepard can't choose not to fight the Reapers". Rejecting the Catalyst is choosing not to fight the Reapers, and allowing them to win. This was never an option across the trilogy so why should it be now

Also the Catalysts logic is his own logic, its not human logic. Unless Shepard has a crystal ball he cannot refute it, he may not agree with it but he cannot refute it. Getting into a debate with the Catalyst over his logic is all well and good, but at the time of the conversation people are dying, worlds are falling and fleets are being destroyed. My own Shepard for example didn't believe the Catalysts logic to be absolute, but he did believe the Catalyst believed it. The Catalyst has had visibility of who knows how many cycles, Shepard does not, but he does have a chance to save what's remaining of his own cycle, he has to take it

The Geth and EDI have proved Synthetic's and Organics' can co-exist.

To me this simply isn't a valid argument. All the Geth and EDI have proven is that at the time of Shepards conversation in the Galaxy, there was peace between Organics' and Synthetics (excluding Reapers) nothing more. Again the Catalyst has seen countless cycles, he has seen the same issues occur over and over again. His logic is that Synthetics rebelling against their creators and destroying organic life. While you may not like or agree with the logic, its impossible for Shepard to disprove. Even Javik explains to Shepard the similar issues between Organic and Synthetics in his own cycle. He too believes that synthetics will inevitably rebell against their creators. synthetics intentions can change just like Organics. Just because there is peace in the world today does not mean there will always be peace

Control
The Key point for me in this argument is Shepards question to the Catalyst "So TIM was right?" This demonstrates to me that Shepard did not believe that Reaper control was possible or at least be convinced it was and therefore did not see it as an option. Certainly from my own point of view that was my conclusion, that TIM was indoctrinated, corrupted by the Reapers and talking nonsense. Why did Shepard argue with TIM?, because TIM had him under physical control and he was trying to appeal to whatever humanity remained within him. Control saves everyone but Shepard, so is the classic self sacrifice ending in a sense.

Destroy
One of the biggest issues seem to have with the destroy ending, is that selecting it means dooming the Geth and EDI. Considering that the Geth and EDI have Reaper tech this is perfectly logical to me. How a beam of energy can destroy some reaper tech and not others to me doesn't make sense. You could even argue its the Geth that doomed themselves by accepting the Reaper tech. Now while I understand how people do not like this fact, it is still however logical. The Geth are collateral damage. With no collateral damage attached to this choice I think most of the players would not even consider the other two. Is it that people don't like the option or don't like the consequences. I think its the latter. As Bioware has always stated a choice without consequence is not really a choice

Synthesis
Again the major point here is the Catalysts logic. I've seen arguments that "This is what Saren proposed" - It isn't, Saren proposed serving the reapers, the Catalyst is proposing the final evolution. The difference is huge - Independence or slavery. This Synthesis is at DNA level, and (again by the Catalysts logic) removes the reapers by removing the need for the Reapers. This is not "Letting the Reapers" win. Its evolution

The Galaxy is Doomed

This one I really don't get. The argument is that all the fleets are stranded in the Sol system and with the Mass Relays destroyed everyone will die ie. The entire galaxy is doomed. This is one big massive assumption. Firstly FTL travel is still possible, yes it takes longer but it can still be done. Secondly the Mass Relays are not "Space Magic", they are technology and technology can be reproduced. A small team of Protheon scientists came up with the Conduit, imagine what all the top scientists in the galaxy that worked on the Crucible can do. Will everyone starve? well there is nothing to suggest this. I'm sure various different foods can be synthesized. There are a number of ways starvation can be avoided. This "The Galaxy is doomed" idea is one massive assumption. Yes the Galaxy is in a dark place, of course it is, its after coming out of a war that nearly wiped it out ! It needs to rebuild and there are numerous challenges ahead, as there should be after a galactic war

Let me be clear here, I didn't like the ending but having said that I don't agree with a large proportion on the reasons, and on how bad they believe it was.

Modifié par Eire Icon, 03 mai 2012 - 02:05 .

[AlexXIV]

Valkyre4 wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Hm the less the player knows, the better. Is that the consens of the ending-likers? Because then I understand why it is great. The only way to make it greater would be to cut all dialogue because then we know even less.

Why are you trying so desperately to prove that if someone even remotely enjoys the endiing it is because he simply knows little or doesnt understand?

Relax, it is called taste and it is how people interpet things in other ways. I explained myself in my previous posts in this very thread, throughly as to how I experienced the end, you are free to read them and not agree with them. just dont go out and say that I enjoyed the ending because I did not understand it or because i imagined things that werent there.

Blah I just read your brainfart in written form because you asked me to. Teaches me I just shouldn't bother.

I give you the example why. "Now that the Catalyst told us we know". No we don't. That's the problem with likers, you believe everything you are told. Hey TIM was indoctrinated so he was untrustworthy. But the boss Reaper is probably telling the truth. Right.

[humes spork]

Valkyre4 wrote...

Why are you trying so desperately to prove that if someone even remotely enjoys the endiing it is because he simply knows little or doesnt understand?

That would be, at least in my opinion, because a certain subset of the community is not comfortable with, or confident in, the notion of something being merely a matter of opinion, and as a result feel the need to resort to appeals to the masses and false dichotomies for reassurance. Which, is really an attempt to polarize the community; at this point, for many it's not about being satisfied, it's about being right.

[AlexXIV]

humes spork wrote...

Valkyre4 wrote...

Why are you trying so desperately to prove that if someone even remotely enjoys the endiing it is because he simply knows little or doesnt understand?

That would be, at least in my opinion, because a certain subset of the community is not comfortable with, or confident in, the notion of something being merely a matter of opinion, and as a result feel the need to resort to appeals to the masses and false dichotomies for reassurance. Which, is really an attempt to polarize the community; at this point, for many it's not about being satisfied, it's about being right.

No it is about teasing. I don't want to polarize anyone. I am calling people out. Pro-enders troll every thread out there. Why don't you talk like that to them? Because they are on your side? Don't even try to pretend you are any better. You have your interests like I do have mine.

[Cypher_CS]

AlexXIV wrote...

Blah I just read your brainfart in written form because you asked me to. Teaches me I just shouldn't bother.

I give you the example why. "Now that the Catalyst told us we know". No we don't. That's the problem with likers, you believe everything you are told. Hey TIM was indoctrinated so he was untrustworthy. But the boss Reaper is probably telling the truth. Right.

Really, is that a problem with "likers"?

Go read my posts, see how many times I've said that while it's true that the Catalyst has no reason to lie (cause as was said above, he's won), there is no need to take him literally as so many of you "haters" do.

[AlexXIV]

Cypher_CS wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Blah I just read your brainfart in written form because you asked me to. Teaches me I just shouldn't bother.

I give you the example why. "Now that the Catalyst told us we know". No we don't. That's the problem with likers, you believe everything you are told. Hey TIM was indoctrinated so he was untrustworthy. But the boss Reaper is probably telling the truth. Right.

Really, is that a problem with "likers"?

Go read my posts, see how many times I've said that while it's true that the Catalyst has no reason to lie (cause as was said above, he's won), there is no need to take him literally as so many of you "haters" do.

And you know that he has no reason to lie from where? Because he won? So winners never lie and have no reason to? You are just incredibly naive or lack imagination. Indoctrination is all about lies, and they do it ever since. And the guy who indoctrinated TIM has EXACTLY THE SAME reason to lie to Shepard as TIM has. Why wouldn't he? Also half of you likers say that Shepard won, the other half that the Catalyst won. At least the anti enders agree that nobody won.

[Eire Icon]

Calamity wrote...

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?

Because once Organics evolve to a certain point technologically, wiping out syntethics achieves nothing. If you destroy all toasters in the world, organics will just build more toasters, they already pocess the know how

Modifié par Eire Icon, 03 mai 2012 - 02:50 .

[EricHVela]

It is easy to refute speculation based on sloppy work because such speculations (even well-thought speculations) have the same validity as the sloppy work.

A scientific theory based on sloppy research (even well-thought theories) has the same validity as the sloppy research.

Modifié par ReggarBlane, 03 mai 2012 - 02:23 .

[AlexXIV]

Eire Icon wrote...

Calamity wrote...

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?

Because once Organics evolve to a certain point technologically, wiping out syntethics achieve nothing. If you destroy all toasters in the world, organics will just build more toasters, they already pocess the know how

And why is it imporant for reapers that organics are not wiped out by synthetics? Organics are just a flaw of nature according to Sovereign. Why protect them?

[savionen]

Cypher_CS wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Blah I just read your brainfart in written form because you asked me to. Teaches me I just shouldn't bother.

I give you the example why. "Now that the Catalyst told us we know". No we don't. That's the problem with likers, you believe everything you are told. Hey TIM was indoctrinated so he was untrustworthy. But the boss Reaper is probably telling the truth. Right.

Really, is that a problem with "likers"?

Go read my posts, see how many times I've said that while it's true that the Catalyst has no reason to lie (cause as was said above, he's won), there is no need to take him literally as so many of you "haters" do.

Trusting the Catalyst would be like being the only person that could stop Hitler, you're in a room alone with him, and he says the solution to WWII is behind one of three magical doors. Aside from analogies, either Ghost-Kid is a Reaper, and therefore cannot be trusted, as they use indoctrination and one's own resources against themselves.

If the Ghost-Kid was created by an ancient civilization then Shepard still reserves the right to make his own judgement. There's not enough information. The Ghost-Kid may say he's "Seen it all" and that eventually synthetics will destroy all organic life, but it's a flawed position. In 2 of the 3 organic vs synthetic sub-stories the Reapers instigated the wars, and the only experiences that Shepard has actually had say that organics and synthetics can coincide.  The actual concept of destroying all organics is also ridiculous in itself and likely fundamentally impossible. Organic life comes out of nothing, and will eventually sprout again, even assuming somehow that synthetics killed all humans, all krogan, all varen, all rabbits, all bacteria, all protozoa and single-cell organisms in the entire galaxy.

So either the Ghost-Kid is untrustworthy, or the presentation of this entire event was just done incredibly poorly by the writers.