9087 réponses à ce sujet

[Obadiah]

@Deathsaurer
Agreed
 

I recall that when I watched 2001 for the first time, I found the ending completely confusing and didn't know what to do with it. I guess some people react in similar ways to ME3's Synthesis. Even if you're familiar with the underlying themes, things aren't exactly clear because it appears the writers didn't have a clear picture themselves and added themes as their fancy took them regardless of in-world plausibility.
...

Thematically the two stories aren't similar. In 2001, the movie's theme is evolution, so the ending's strange advance in evolution is at least thematically coherent, if deliciously convoluted. To be sure, I did not understand that movie's ending until I read the novel, and supposedly the novel only presents one possible interpretation of the movie.

I do like the idea though, that in 2001 and Mass Effect, the crew are on an unknown journey towards... something... directed in some subtle way by more advanced beings to an end they may not understand, and may not even agree with. 2001 had its Monoliths, and Mass Effect has its Relays. 2001 has its encounter through the wormhole, and Mass Effect has the Decision Chamber. Both stories ended, originally at least, with a question mark of what comes next, with 2001 and Control involving transformation of the main character, and Synthesis involving transformation of all life.

Mass Effect is obviously not 2001: A Space Odyssey - its an action Sci-Fi video game, not a meticulously researched piece of science fiction by an obsessive personality. But I liked what the devs were going for with the ending - something out-of-the-box and thought provoking in a constructive way. That the Mass Effect ending was received the way it was is unfortunate.

[Ymladdych]

The big problem, and what Shepard fights for (Paragon - for everyone else, Renegade - for himself).

Mmmmm...everyone's different when it comes to their Shepard's reasons for fighting. I also don't believe it's quite so cut-and-dried as renegade = selfish, paragon = selfless. I've seen people have some pretty selfish reasons for picking Paragon options, and I know that I've had some pretty non-selfish reasons for picking the Renegade options that I do. (My Shepard's purple across the Trilogy.)

There was an art book that said it was actually mind (Renegade) vs. heart (Paragon), which seems true to me. That's probably the basis for the visual symbolism behind TIM and Renegade Shepard's eyes; it's meant to imply a cold, machine-like temperament.

[Ymladdych]

The Leviathan's were also really terrible at programming.

Ha! Yeah. Something tells me it was a documentation problem. They seemed too buttholey to comment their stuff.

[Iakus]

@Iakus
I don't think the comment reflected a degree of sapience. In fact, I think the Catalyst was responding to what it interpreted as a rather racist statement by Shepard, who defined it by a broad category instead of as an entity deserving of consideration. I think it responded in kind, and you've just misinterpreted the statement.
 

Do EDI and the geth ever take umbrage at being called an AI or synthetics?  Nope.  They're quite matter-of-fact about their existence as created life.  Why should the Catalyst be any different?  Unless, of course, it considers itself to be something more.  Which is entirely consistent with the attitude shown by Reapers.

 

 

Frankly, your arguments are not compelling. The answers to your assertions are fairly obvious, and have been given to you before on many occasions. Claiming ignorance now by restating them is simply a waste of everyone's time. "Its assumptions are flawed" (a declaration based on, what, one state of peace only achieved because the Reapers attacked? Hardly conclusive), "argues from authority rather than facts" (it has been studying the conflict for over a billion years, does it not have authority, along with a vast history of conflict between Organics and Synthetics as facts?), continues the attack even as it admits that it will not work" (a statement of eventual failure that is not a contradiction of its ongoing action to prevent the total destruction of Organics now, and not an argument to stop the current Reaper cycle).

 

 

1) Starting with an absolutist statement right off the bat virtually guarantees a flawed assumption.  

2) No it does not have authority, because it has been cooking the books for millions of years.  It recruited the geth, suborned the zha'til, and did who knows what to other synthetic life forms .  It's an arsonist selling fire insurance.

3) it does not say that it will fail "someday".  It says my solution will no longer work.  As in, the solution isn't breaking down it's already broken.

 

 

And how do you know it has not changed and adapted given that the Reaper solution was a change from its previous attempt at a solution? At this point, I feel you are as guilty of the "flawed assumptions" that you accuse the Catalyst of having.

 

 

Because it continues to Reap even as it talks of Shepard having "hope"

[Iakus]

You do remember who created it right? The colossal morons that insist that it, despite destroying their empire and trying to hunt them to extinction, still serves is purpose. Because they can't make mistakes, ever. See where I'm going with this?

 

Is it highly intelligent? Sure. Is it completely deluded because of what it learned from its creators? Absolutely!

 

And its inability to grow past the delusions of its creators, even after millions of years, shows that it's not much brighter than its creators, who long ago proved themselves contenders for the Darwin Awards.

[CosmicGnosis]

There was an art book that said it was actually mind (Renegade) vs. heart (Paragon), which seems true to me. That's probably the basis for the visual symbolism behind TIM and Renegade Shepard's eyes; it's meant to imply a cold, machine-like temperament.

 

In that case... synthetics vs. organics! 

[Deathsaurer]

And its inability to grow past the delusions of its creators, even after millions of years, shows that it's not much brighter than its creators, who long ago proved themselves contenders for the Darwin Awards.

Well I'd certainly say it displays an amazing level of arrogance.

 

And taking your above post. Let's be honest. What it's doing is holding the galaxy hostage to force your imput. It realizes for the first time in its existence it needs organic help to fulfill its purpose and it's going to make sure it gets it. No retreat, no debate. Give me what I want or die. It's a horribly callus entity that is deserving of precisely zero sympathy.

[CosmicGnosis]

According to the Mass Effect Wiki:

 

If the quarians destroyed the geth:

• In the Synthesis ending, the quarians are still living in their environmental suits.

This is very intriguing to me. It could just be laziness, but it could also be very significant. It's more evidence that Synthesis is not an instant cure-all. Without the geth, the quarians still have a while before they can live without the suits, even in a post-Synthesis future.

[Ieldra]

@Deathsaurer
Agreed
 
Thematically the two stories aren't similar. In 2001, the movie's theme is evolution, so the ending's strange advance in evolution is at least thematically coherent, if deliciously convoluted. To be sure, I did not understand that movie's ending until I read the novel, and supposedly the novel only presents one possible interpretation of the movie.

I do like the idea though, that in 2001 and Mass Effect, the crew are on an unknown journey towards... something... directed in some subtle way by more advanced beings to an end they may not understand, and may not even agree with. 2001 had its Monoliths, and Mass Effect has its Relays. 2001 has its encounter through the wormhole, and Mass Effect has the Decision Chamber. Both stories ended, originally at least, with a question mark of what comes next, with 2001 and Control involving transformation of the main character, and Synthesis involving transformation of all life.

Mass Effect is obviously not 2001: A Space Odyssey - its an action Sci-Fi video game, not a meticulously researched piece of science fiction by an obsessive personality. But I liked what the devs were going for with the ending - something out-of-the-box and thought provoking in a constructive way. That the Mass Effect ending was received the way it was is unfortunate.

 

I've often said I like the ideas behind ME3's ending scenario - barring only "organic energy" and the sacrifice theme. As opposed to some others, I don't have a problem with the Catalyst itself and its rationale for the cycle. I didn't even mind the death of the protagonist as such. Yes, I did write an epilogue where Shepard came back after the Synthesis, but that was strictly my personal preference and because I hated the way this death was construed to be meaningful in a pseudo-religious way. However, the execution is atrocious. It appears to me that the lead writer and project head tried to bite off more than they were capable of handling. 

 

As for the reception: what is unfortunate is that these things were handled incompetently by the writers. Would the ending have been received better were that not the case? Maybe not. Maybe the ME fandom isn't the right target audience for such things. Maybe a militaristic action game isn't the right platform to present such ideas. Yet again, it might have been ok - with a little more advance planning and storytelling competence.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 I'll keep repeating this 'til I'm blue in the face...

 

The Catalyst need not present any facts: it is the fact. Synthetic with the power to destroy organic civilization? Standing right in front of you.

 

And there's really nothing that stupid about it as people insist. On one hand, yeah, the Catalyst kind of became the very thing it was trying to protect against. On the other hand, not really, because an AI with the same power that lacks its interest in "saving" organic life would do A LOT worse than what he and his minions are doing -- the Catalyst/Reapers don't completely dominate organic life: (1) they only concern themselves with sapient species; (2) they leave the galaxy and allow organic life to flourish in their absence -- far more live and die naturally than will ever face the Reapers in their lifetime; (3) they preserve what's essential to their beings (and those lifeforms can actually end up surviving as free-willed beings in one ending of ME3); (4) they do not go all-out in war -- they hold back so there are enough organics to be preserved, relying more on draining resources over years of fighting rather than total-war.

 

Ultimately, it's wrong to dismiss the Catalyst's claims as impossible: it did happen once (and can therefore happen again).

[angol fear]

I've often said I like the ideas behind ME3's ending scenario - barring only "organic energy" and the sacrifice theme. As opposed to some others, I don't have a problem with the Catalyst itself and its rationale for the cycle. I didn't even mind the death of the protagonist as such. Yes, I did write an epilogue where Shepard came back after the Synthesis, but that was strictly my personal preference and because I hated the way this death was construed to be meaningful in a pseudo-religious way. However, the execution is atrocious. It appears to me that the lead writer and project head tried to bite off more than they were capable of handling. 

 

As for the reception: what is unfortunate is that these things were handled incompetently by the writers. Would the ending have been received better were that not the case? Maybe not. Maybe the ME fandom isn't the right target audience for such things. Maybe a militaristic action game isn't the right platform to present such ideas. Yet again, it might have been ok - with a little more advance planning and storytelling competence.

And What about almost perfect writing but lack of competence in reading?

[teh DRUMPf!!]

According to the Mass Effect Wiki:

 

If the quarians destroyed the geth:

• In the Synthesis ending, the quarians are still living in their environmental suits.

This is very intriguing to me. It could just be laziness, but it could also be very significant. It's more evidence that Synthesis is not an instant cure-all. Without the geth, the quarians still have a while before they can live without the suits, even in a post-Synthesis future.

 

Yet they're walking around unmasked.

 

Tali said in ME3 that the quarians would probably still wear their 'suits even after losing the need for them, because they've become part of their culture. I think their continued use of suits has less to do with need and more to do with sentimentalism.

[CosmicGnosis]

Yet they're walking around unmasked.

 

Tali said in ME3 that the quarians would probably still wear their 'suits even after losing the need for them, because they've become part of their culture. I think their continued use of suits has less to do with need and more to do with sentimentalism.

 

I doubt that they would continue to wear the masks if they didn't need them. That just seems completely unnecessary.

[KaiserShep]

And What about almost perfect writing but lack of competence in reading?

That's kind of like saying that people are just incapable of appreciating the artistic vision of Michael Bay when he directed Transformers, or The Happening was really a cinematic masterpiece. Not to say that ME3 is near the level of dreck in those films, but if the way a story is written comes off as jarring and off-putting to a lot of people, it's more likely that there's some failing in the way this story was told than some massive deficiency shared among a great deal of its audience.

[angol fear]

 but if the way a story is written comes off as jarring and off-putting to a lot of people, it's more likely that there's some failing in the way this story was told than some massive deficiency shared among a great deal of its audience.

So because there's a lot of people who didn't like, it's bad? Then masterpieces (in every art) turn into bad writing, painting...

[Obadiah]

@Ieldra
But "atrocious" is such a big word for what appears to be 3 or 4 sentences. The original Synthesis explanation was that Shepard had to add his energy to the Crucible, and that everything that he was would be absorbed and sent out causing a chain reaction to form a new matrix/DNA. This could easily have been understood (as you have explained previously) as a simplified explanation dumbed down for the soldier protagonist to understand, because the science at work is just too advanced. It barely even recognized Shepard as special, other than being the one to reach the room, and still be alive.

Instead each word was taken and analyzed, as if it could be, by real currently understood science, and criticized as ridiculous. How much more could this really have been improved? It is a surprise twist ending, so an obvious buildup is out of the question. Perhaps one or two trans-human or evolutionary conversations prior to establish some groundwork. Maybe remove the plant tech aesthetic. A few different words by the Catalyst to describe Shepard's death. People would still be complaining about themes, broken AI, ridiculous science, and Eugenics etc... because they really just want the enemy to be wrong and destroyed.

[Farangbaa]

@Ieldra
But "atrocious" is such a big word for what appear to be 3 or 4 sentences. The original Synthesis explanation was that Shepard had to add his energy to the Crucible, and that everything that he was would be absorbed and sent out causing a chain reaction to form a new matrix/DNA. This could easily have been understood (as you have explained previously) as a simplified explanation dumbed down for the soldier protagonist to understand, because the science at work is just too advanced. It barely even recognized Shepard as special, other than being the one to reach the room, and still be alive.

Instead each word was taken and analyzed, as if it could be, by real currently understood science, and criticized as ridiculous. How much more could this really have been improved? It is a surprise twist ending, so an obvious buildup is out of the question. Perhaps one or two trans-human or evolutionary conversations prior to establish some groundwork. Maybe remove the plant tech aesthetic. A few different words by the Catalyst to describe Shepard's death. People would still be complaining about themes, broken AI, ridiculous science, and Eugenics etc... because they really just want the enemy to be wrong and destroyed.

 

But Shepard is transhuman.

 

Oh wait, he doesn't have a synthetic brain. *bangs head against wall*

[ImaginaryMatter]

@Ieldra
But "atrocious" is such a big word for what appear to be 3 or 4 sentences. The original Synthesis explanation was that Shepard had to add his energy to the Crucible, and that everything that he was would be absorbed and sent out causing a chain reaction to form a new matrix/DNA. This could easily have been understood (as you have explained previously) as a simplified explanation dumbed down for the soldier protagonist to understand, because the science at work is just too advanced. It barely even recognized Shepard as special, other than being the one to reach the room, and still be alive.

Instead each word was taken and analyzed, as if it could be, by real currently understood science, and criticized as ridiculous. How much more could this really have been improved? It is a surprise twist ending, so an obvious buildup is out of the question. Perhaps one or two trans-human or evolutionary conversations prior to establish some groundwork. Maybe remove the plant tech aesthetic. A few different words by the Catalyst to describe Shepard's death. People would still be complaining about themes, broken AI, ridiculous science, and Eugenics etc...

 

I wouldn't say "easily understood". If you're going to throw something as radical as Synthesis you better take the time to explain it. And if they wanted to pass it off as too complicated they could have at the very least lampshaded it, "You would not know the science, and there is little time to explain."

 

Instead the whole thing comes off as an asspull to introduce a third choice. I don't think it would have been so bad if it was left deliberately ambiguous as to what it did (which I doubt was the intention because the EC tries to, albeit horribly, provide a larger explanation).

 

Who knows how people would have reacted if it was handled with any finesse.

[angol fear]

I wouldn't say "easily understood". If you're going to throw something as radical as Synthesis you better take the time to explain it. And if they wanted to pass it off as too complicated they could have at the very least lampshaded it, "You would not know the science, and there is little time to explain."

 

Instead the whole thing comes off as an asspull to introduce a third choice. I don't think it would have been so bad if it was left deliberately ambiguous as to what it did (which I doubt was the intention because the EC tries to, albeit horribly, provide a larger explanation).

 

Who knows how people would have reacted if it was handled with any finesse.

the synthesis choice was introduce in the writing of the trilogy with finesse. Over explanation isn't a quality, it's doesn't make something brilliant, intelligent.

[ImaginaryMatter]

the synthesis choice was introduce in the writing of the trilogy with finesse. Over explanation isn't a quality, it's doesn't make something brilliant, intelligent.

 

Care to explain that?

[DoomsdayDevice]

Bioware would have to show us unmasked Quarians, if they weren't wearing suits in synthesis.

 

There's your explanation.

[Seival]

This thread is from a year ago today.

 

Dead. Dead. Let it go!

 

Synthesis concept is too interesting to discuss. Especially in contrast with the other endings. It's a good thread, no matter how old it is.

[Iakus]

I wouldn't say "easily understood". If you're going to throw something as radical as Synthesis you better take the time to explain it. And if they wanted to pass it off as too complicated they could have at the very least lampshaded it, "You would not know the science, and there is little time to explain."

 

Instead the whole thing comes off as an asspull to introduce a third choice. I don't think it would have been so bad if it was left deliberately ambiguous as to what it did (which I doubt was the intention because the EC tries to, albeit horribly, provide a larger explanation).

 

Who knows how people would have reacted if it was handled with any finesse.

 

Was going to post something to this effect, but you saved me the trouble.

 

Just as well, I probably would have used less diplomatic language

[angol fear]

Care to explain that?

I'll explain when i'll have enough time. The idea is just that people think that good writing is explaining everything, but from a high level of writing perspective, good writing is working with a form, saying the most by it, and saying just what is needed to be said. Series make people get used to structures with a lot parenthesis, and make people get used to bad reading. When you see people saying that Tolstoi didn't write well because there are plot holes or 2001 doesn't make sense, you can start to think that there is a problem of reading.

[CronoDragoon]

And there's really nothing that stupid about it as people insist.

 

The only thing that really doesn't make sense about the Catalyst is using the Reapers to fight. If his goal really is to preserve civilizations in Reaper form, then he should be keeping the Reapers in dark space and using straight up synthetic pawns to fight the wars. Every Reaper that gets destroyed unnecessarily during the cycles is a failure on his part.