9089 réponses à ce sujet

[His Name was HYR!!]

(Had to change computers)

clennon8 wrote...

It's quite bizarre that people would cling so tenaciously to the theory that Bioware suddenly forgot everything about Mass Effect, eschewed every lesson they had taught, and abandoned every theme they had nurtured for the first 99% of the narrative.

Because the ending tells us that not everything is the way we thought they were (hence the "Matrix" thing in Mac's notes). It's not like we knew squat about the Reapers to begin with, only vague ideas. In that, the 99% does still hold.

Which again brings me to denial, which is what's going on when people refuse to accept 100%, just the 99 they liked.

[ghost9191]

i will jump on that band wagon. i like this thread , good place to get insight as i said yesterday,. if i wanted to see IT i would go to that thread i never pay attention to . not that it is a bad theory just not my crowd.

anywho i love living in ignorance. if i knew half the stuff i know , i would be down right terrified

[Kabooooom]

clennon8 wrote...

Well, they were either clever or suddenly turned into colossal morons. Take your pick.

ed:  Also, I'm an atheist, so no I won't be waiting for Jesus to return.  That, at least, is something Ieldra and I agree on.

They suddenly turned moronic, because of the writers and EA time constraints. It isn't rocket science. They just wrote a less than ideal ending scenario.

And I chose that as an example of something which is hilariously improbable, based on limited evidence and continually surprises diehard faithful when it doesn't happen. The comparison to IT believers is clear. You guys are like a cult. Why can't you just say "I think the ending was indoctrination, but everyone is entitled to their beliefs?"

But I digress. Thread back on track now.

[Ieldra]

Speaking of contradictions - there are a few in the Synthesis exposition, and I'd like to know if anyone has found a way to resolve them:

(1) The "new...DNA" of the original endings unfortunately still exists. But now it's contradicted by the EC which says that synthetics "gain full understanding of organics".

(2) The "final evolution of all life" is unfortunately still in and the "all" is even stressed, but from the epilogue it's pretty clear that the post-Synthesis civilization still has lots of potential for further advancement and that nothing is really final. Furthermore the "overcoming mortality" suggests that even on the biological level there may be further changes.

Personally, I'm tempted to ignore the first parts as a legacy of the original endings and take the EC exposition as canon, especially since they don't make sense in the first place. I wonder why the writers didn't do away with them when they made the EC.

[Kabooooom]

Personally, I'm tempted to ignore the first parts as a legacy of the original endings and take the EC exposition as canon, especially since they don't make sense in the first place. I wonder why the writers didn't do away with them when they made the EC.

I think this is reasonable. They also made changes to the Destroy ending, making the consequences way more vague. He doesn't even tell you that you will kill the Geth anymore straight up (even though it is pretty obvious you do). So if Bioware wanted to expand upon the endings, and in doing so changed the pre-ending dialogue, I think that should be recognized as canon.

[His Name was HYR!!]

clennon8 wrote...

Well, they were either clever or suddenly turned into colossal morons. Take your pick.

Not sure why I'm even bothering, because this guy is KaiLengnon8 for a reason - he runs away from anything that threatens to expose him for the pathetic idiot he is - but nontheless...

The kind of thought-process that the general IT camp believes goes on in the heads of the developers, it's a complete joke and so out-of-touch with reality that it could drive a man to drink. Basically you're insinuating things like:

(Development/Writing team deciding on an ending...)

"Hey, let's NOT end the story of the trilogy's final installment!"
"What are we going to do?"
"Make a minigame where Shepard fights indoctrination! If he wins, he wakes up!"
"And if he loses?"
"He, uh.. doesn't wake up! Oh, and waking up also requires playing multiplayer. So, even the people who "win" don't win if they only play SP."
"What about the story? Does it end?"
"No. But who cares about that? It's all about our super awesome social experiment!"
"What about clues to let the player know if they win or lose?"
"Nah, we're going to make the endings virtually identical. That's what makes it *tricky* ... don't you see?"
"Oh, okay. Cool!" =D

(Ending fiasco takes place...)

"Uh, seems like the fanbase doesn't like our endings for some reason."
"They want clarity and closure. I think now is the time to reveal this awesome elaborate ruse we have going on?"
"No, no, don't do that! Let's uphold the literal interpretation instead, and stomp on some of the plot-points that the fans who DID figure out the trickery are using as evidence, giving the true interpretation more plotholes than the phony one!"
"But why?"
"Because that's how you trick people! If the real thing is unbelieveable, far-fetched, and makes no logical sense, then few people will believe it, and so the trick is working!"
"Doesn't that just invalidate our whole scheme, by making it too nonsensical to be believed or taken seriously whilst the literal interpreation hold much more water?"
"Maybe. But that's the point!"
"Then how do we reveal our intent?"
"We don't, don't you get it?! Or maybe we will with a DLC long after the number of players playing the game has peaked, rather than... oh, I dunno, right now when it's peaking. What are we going to lose, lots of money??"
"... yeah, that makes sense!"

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 31 octobre 2012 - 11:44 .

[clennon8]

I'm getting mixed signals here. I think maybe you all really want me to come back.

[CosmicGnosis]

clennon8 wrote...

I'm getting mixed signals here. I think maybe you all really want me to come back.

They're gonna synthesize you.

[CosmicGnosis]

So I've chosen Control, but I still have some serious thematic problems with it. I chose it because it's the least destructive and least invasive choice, but that's from a literal perspective. From a thematic perspective, it essentially validates Thomas Hobbes' belief that humans need a sovereign to guide them. I don't like that.

Jtav, what exactly pushed you to move back to Synthesis?

Modifié par CosmicGnosis, 01 novembre 2012 - 12:32 .

[ghost9191]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Speaking of contradictions - there are a few in the Synthesis exposition, and I'd like to know if anyone has found a way to resolve them:

(1) The "new...DNA" of the original endings unfortunately still exists. But now it's contradicted by the EC which says that synthetics "gain full understanding of organics".

(2) The "final evolution of all life" is unfortunately still in and the "all" is even stressed, but from the epilogue it's pretty clear that the post-Synthesis civilization still has lots of potential for further advancement and that nothing is really final. Furthermore the "overcoming mortality" suggests that even on the biological level there may be further changes.

Personally, I'm tempted to ignore the first parts as a legacy of the original endings and take the EC exposition as canon, especially since they don't make sense in the first place. I wonder why the writers didn't do away with them when they made the EC.

well since no one else did,. i will give (1) the old college try. might be what you meant but. guessing it is just the "organic" side that gets the altered "new" dna . synthetics i think just get emotions, or at least a understanding of them which in turn gives them a better understanding. although i don't see how you can understand organics without understanding mortality . they live forever , whereas ( at least pre synthesis ) we do not . so i don't think they would understand why we do the things we do , like edi kinda did i guess by talking to shepard , so possible but don't think they could fully understand organics

but that is kinda drifting off. but idk . they don't get dna , at least i don't think so . just maybe as said emotions and such. it is more about our accomplishments and such . legacy if you will . that gives us purpose,. if they need to understand that anyways . so emotions would be a step in the right direction .

but i could be completely off . but gave it a shot . need to put more thought into this stuff i think

[ghost9191]

@CosmicGnosis

totally not addressed at me,. but i like attention so yeah

i say just forget it all. all this indecision and crap. just shoot the tube:devil: . its easy and satisfying . yeah the geth and reapers are a casualty but i can't justify that , only that it is for the greater good . THE GREATER GOOD:innocent:

anyways , for the science , is reason to choose synthesis . oh and the new possibilities and knowledge it brings. but mostly the science:innocent:

Modifié par ghost9191, 01 novembre 2012 - 12:37 .

[CosmicGnosis]

ghost9191 wrote...

@CosmicGnosis

totally not addressed at me,. but i like attention so yeah

i say just forget it all. all this indecision and crap. just shoot the tube:devil: . its easy and satisfying . yeah the geth and reapers are a casualty but i can't justify that , only that it is for the greater good . THE GREATER GOOD:innocent:

anyways , for the science , is reason to choose synthesis . oh and the new possibilities and knowledge it brings. but mostly the science:innocent:

Destroy is the easiest choice, except for the synthetic extinction. Other than that, it's the most comfortable choice. But does that make it the best?

Modifié par CosmicGnosis, 01 novembre 2012 - 12:54 .

[ghost9191]

didn't say it was the best. at least i don't think i did. just that it doesn't take that much thought. like more of a in the moment . don't really need that much explanation with it. it is simple. destroys all synthetics.

it is not right. that is why i still talk about the endings. i want a nice happy ending. hell a destroy without the sacrifice of the geth, let them and the quarians build a future together

but was mainly kinda making a joke., like don't fight it , come to the darkside . the choice is yours in the end. destroy for me is the only one that doesn't give me that "i... don't know" feeling . but doesn't make it right. hell my shepard has said countless times genocide is bad. of course then he blew up the bahak system

anyways off track. it isn't right. basically only you can make the choice. shepard is alone , has no one to call on. same should be said for you , in a rp sense

was telling the truth about synthesis though. science was mostly a joke, just see those banner that are for mad science or whatever

[CosmicGnosis]

For Synthesis supporters: What do you think the central theme of Synthesis is? Basically, after playing through the whole trilogy and experiencing the galaxy and the Reaper conflict, what are you saying when you choose Synthesis?

Modifié par CosmicGnosis, 01 novembre 2012 - 01:38 .

[jtav]

CG, it was actually the Reapers. I replayed Legion's conversation about the nature of the Reapers. If he is correct about them being the conjoined minds of entire species, then they are valid life. Which means killing them becomes a last resort and not a first one. In RL, I'm anti-death penalty and I'm severely disabled, so the talk of killing them because they deserve and *especially* because of the idea that it was some kind of mercy, made my hair stand on end. So I'd save them if I could and have reason to believe Synthesis accomplishes such. The Synthesis change is radical, but it doesn't harm anyone. I judged it worth it.

As for why not Control: I'm a chicken. The idea of Shepard apparently indifferent to his loved ones was a fate I couldn't bear, and I never really wanted to do anything with the Reapers.

[CosmicGnosis]

jtav wrote...

CG, it was actually the Reapers. I replayed Legion's conversation about the nature of the Reapers. If he is correct about them being the conjoined minds of entire species, then they are valid life. Which means killing them becomes a last resort and not a first one. In RL, I'm anti-death penalty and I'm severely disabled, so the talk of killing them because they deserve and *especially* because of the idea that it was some kind of mercy, made my hair stand on end. So I'd save them if I could and have reason to believe Synthesis accomplishes such. The Synthesis change is radical, but it doesn't harm anyone. I judged it worth it.

As for why not Control: I'm a chicken. The idea of Shepard apparently indifferent to his loved ones was a fate I couldn't bear, and I never really wanted to do anything with the Reapers.

I sympathize with this, but I don't think it's enough to make me synthesize the whole galaxy. That's why I'm becoming more interested in the thematic aspects of the endings than the literal aspects. In the literal case, I'd choose Control or Destroy. In the thematic case... I don't know yet, but I don't like Control, and Synthesis seems intriguing, if I could just understand what I'm saying about life, the universe, and everything when I choose it.

[Steelcan]

I'm just trying to get some perspective on this idea of mine.

I see the reapers in a very similar light to the orcs in LotR. They were once something so different from what they are now. Their past beauty has been eradicated and replaced with an abomination. They are corrupted and twisted beyond recognition. They cannot be redeemed, they are too far gone for anything to save them now.

Thoughts?

[DirtyPhoenix]

ghost9191 wrote...

anywho i love living in ignorance. if i knew half the stuff i know , i would be down right terrified

That's an interesting perspective. I'll add it to me databanks for future reference.

[CosmicGnosis]

Steelcan wrote...

I'm just trying to get some perspective on this idea of mine.

I see the reapers in a very similar light to the orcs in LotR. They were once something so different from what they are now. Their past beauty has been eradicated and replaced with an abomination. They are corrupted and twisted beyond recognition. They cannot be redeemed, they are too far gone for anything to save them now.

Thoughts?

The Lord of the Rings had the One Ring of Power. You know, the thing that no one could use without being corrupted by it. Destroying it was the only option.

SUPER MAC.

I think Tolkien also had somewhat traditional beliefs on the status of nature. Not that such beliefs are bad, but he did seem to frown on technology to a certain degree.

[DirtyPhoenix]

Kabooooom wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

Well, they were either clever or suddenly turned into colossal morons. Take your pick.

ed:  Also, I'm an atheist, so no I won't be waiting for Jesus to return.  That, at least, is something Ieldra and I agree on.

They suddenly turned moronic, because of the writers and EA time constraints. It isn't rocket science. They just wrote a less than ideal ending scenario.

I'll go with the morons option:whistle: as well. Sometimes sh!t happens. Like Kaboooooom said, they were rushed by EA. Infact I find the 'EA-rush theory' more plausible than IT.

[Steelcan]

CosmicGnosis wrote...


The Lord of the Rings had the One Ring of Power. You know, the thing that no one could use without being corrupted by it. Destroying it was the only option.

SUPER MAC.

I think Tolkien also had somewhat traditional beliefs on the status of nature. Not that such beliefs are bad, but he did seem to frown on technology to a certain degree.

If you think about it the ring is very similar to indoctrination, the reapers=orcs/nazgul, catalyst=Sauron.  

Also Tolkien was practically a Luddite.  He considered the internal combustion engine the most evil device ever created, coming from a man who witnessed WW1 from the front lines.

[CosmicGnosis]

Ieldra, it seems that you intended to return to this thread at some point. Did you ever sort out your thoughts?

http://social.biowar.../index/12330623

Modifié par CosmicGnosis, 01 novembre 2012 - 04:39 .

[inko1nsiderate]

clennon8 wrote...

Well, they were either clever or suddenly turned into colossal morons. Take your pick.

ed:  Also, I'm an atheist, so no I won't be waiting for Jesus to return.  That, at least, is something Ieldra and I agree on.

Or you know, the ending wasn't as colossally bad as people think and say and they did something clever but not IT.  I can make a very strong case for this point, one many would still disagree with, but something tells me you don't even care enough to give it a fair chance.

Modifié par inko1nsiderate, 01 novembre 2012 - 06:41 .

[inko1nsiderate]

Ieldra2 wrote...
Personally, I'm tempted to ignore the first parts as a legacy of the original endings and take the EC exposition as canon, especially since they don't make sense in the first place. I wonder why the writers didn't do away with them when they made the EC.

Frankly, it doesn't make sense to take the original ending as canon.  If you had an analysis of the end of ME3 and it was contradicted by the EC everyone is going to say that you are wrong because of the content in the EC (or other DLC).  So you might as well take it as the actual ending.

Modifié par inko1nsiderate, 01 novembre 2012 - 06:46 .

[CosmicGnosis]

inko1nsiderate wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

Well, they were either clever or suddenly turned into colossal morons. Take your pick.

ed:  Also, I'm an atheist, so no I won't be waiting for Jesus to return.  That, at least, is something Ieldra and I agree on.

Or you know, the ending wasn't as colossally bad as people think and say and they did something clever but not IT.  I can make a very strong case for this point, one many would still disagree with, but something tells me you don't even care enough to give it a fair chance.

I would like to hear this. I'm open to all interpretations.