Aller au contenu

Photo

Can somebody please explain this cut dark energy plot??


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
180 réponses à ce sujet

#26
HBC Dresden

HBC Dresden
  • Members
  • 1 707 messages

Pride Demon wrote...

I hear a lot of people saying this would have been worse than what we actually got...
Given this I have a question...

Why?


Because the Dark Energy ending has a horrible final choice. For one, it does not take into account our past choices (which speaks to a design oversight for the current ending, not laziness). More importantly, people hated the RGB choice partially because the options were suboptimal and working within Reaper logic. But at least there are fans who picked each of the three options. Who the hell is going to pick the "sacrifice humanity" option over the "kill the Reapers and hope for the best" option? Why would a Renegade Shepard--usually an ends justifying the means type of person to benefit humanity--work to fulfill Reaper goals? If that doesn't sound like Indoctrination, I don't know what does.

#27
Dezerte

Dezerte
  • Members
  • 388 messages

HBC Dresden wrote...

Pride Demon wrote...

I hear a lot of people saying this would have been worse than what we actually got...
Given this I have a question...

Why?


Because the Dark Energy ending has a horrible final choice. For one, it does not take into account our past choices (which speaks to a design oversight for the current ending, not laziness). More importantly, people hated the RGB choice partially because the options were suboptimal and working within Reaper logic. But at least there are fans who picked each of the three options. Who the hell is going to pick the "sacrifice humanity" option over the "kill the Reapers and hope for the best" option? Why would a Renegade Shepard--usually an ends justifying the means type of person to benefit humanity--work to fulfill Reaper goals? If that doesn't sound like Indoctrination, I don't know what does.


A Renegade Shepard wouldn't, if he/she has only humanity's interests in mind he/she'll choose to destroy the Reapers.

While a Paragon might choose to sacrifice humanity for the "greater good".

Thing is, there are no right choices here. They are both bad and good in their own way, that's why I called it an interesting dilemma.

#28
Drake-Shepard

Drake-Shepard
  • Members
  • 1 086 messages

HBC Dresden wrote...

Pride Demon wrote...

I hear a lot of people saying this would have been worse than what we actually got...
Given this I have a question...

Why?


Because the Dark Energy ending has a horrible final choice. For one, it does not take into account our past choices (which speaks to a design oversight for the current ending, not laziness). More importantly, people hated the RGB choice partially because the options were suboptimal and working within Reaper logic. But at least there are fans who picked each of the three options. Who the hell is going to pick the "sacrifice humanity" option over the "kill the Reapers and hope for the best" option? Why would a Renegade Shepard--usually an ends justifying the means type of person to benefit humanity--work to fulfill Reaper goals? If that doesn't sound like Indoctrination, I don't know what does.


your choices can matter even in the ending we have now.... the choices that leads to different amount of assets can help hammer team and sword fleet... and the amount of troops you have can give you different outcomes...ie. you can reach the beam (lets assume that part is still in all versions), your team can get whiped out, sword fleet can flop and the crucible destroyed before it can get inside the citadel... etc etc etc

the final choice in dark energy....if you choose to tell the reapers to go away or sacrifice only humans for the human reaper for example...you know the state of the galaxy, you know if the geth and living with quarians on rannoch or not...nothing has to eradicate that decision by blowing up all relays and/or possibly destroying all synthetics aswell in some ambigious way that we are not sure that happened.

#29
Pride Demon

Pride Demon
  • Members
  • 1 342 messages

Sejborg wrote...

 Dark energy? Sounds like space magic to me. :wizard:

It is... Eezo generates dark energy fields when subject to currents... These dark energy fields augment or reduce the mass of objects...
You may know this phenomenon as Mass Effect... Like, you know, the title of the game...

HBC Dresden wrote...
Because the Dark Energy ending has a horrible final choice. For one, it
does not take into account our past choices (which speaks to a design
oversight for the current ending, not laziness). More importantly,
people hated the RGB choice partially because the options were
suboptimal and working within Reaper logic. But at least there are fans
who picked each of the three options. Who the hell is going to pick the
"sacrifice humanity" option over the "kill the Reapers and hope for the
best" option? Why would a Renegade Shepard--usually an ends justifying
the means type of person to benefit humanity--work to fulfill Reaper
goals? If that doesn't sound like Indoctrination, I don't know what
does.

Considering how early it was dropped we have absolutely no idea how those endings would have been implemented and how our decision would have mattered...
I doubt it would have been some uber mind blowing ending, but saying it would have su*ked after reading a cursory summary isn't exactly fair... At least in my opinion...

And if anything, it had more foreshadowing, if that even means something...

Modifié par Pride Demon, 03 juin 2012 - 12:08 .


#30
HBC Dresden

HBC Dresden
  • Members
  • 1 707 messages

Dezman8 wrote...

HBC Dresden wrote...

Pride Demon wrote...

I hear a lot of people saying this would have been worse than what we actually got...
Given this I have a question...

Why?


Because the Dark Energy ending has a horrible final choice. For one, it does not take into account our past choices (which speaks to a design oversight for the current ending, not laziness). More importantly, people hated the RGB choice partially because the options were suboptimal and working within Reaper logic. But at least there are fans who picked each of the three options. Who the hell is going to pick the "sacrifice humanity" option over the "kill the Reapers and hope for the best" option? Why would a Renegade Shepard--usually an ends justifying the means type of person to benefit humanity--work to fulfill Reaper goals? If that doesn't sound like Indoctrination, I don't know what does.


A Renegade Shepard wouldn't, if he/she has only humanity's interests in mind he/she'll choose to destroy the Reapers.

While a Paragon might choose to sacrifice humanity for the "greater good".

Thing is, there are no right choices here. They are both bad and good in their own way, that's why I called it an interesting dilemma.


I'm not sure on your reasoning for the Paragon Shepard, because Paragon throughout the series is represented as the Doctor Who "nobody dies today" type of character. Paragon Shepard would never doom an entire (non-Reaperized) species to death to save the universe. A case in point: the real rachni queen in ME1 & 2. Renegade Shepard is represented throughout the game as the greater good type, although the cost is usually enormous and involves cutting corners. A case in point, the Renegade option in Priority: Tuchanka and if Wrex is still alive.

I think the current ending choice already excels at the concept of no right/wrong, just gray choices.

Drake-Shepard wrote...

your choices can matter even in the ending we have now.... the choices that leads to different amount of assets can help hammer team and sword fleet... and the amount of troops you have can give you different outcomes...ie. you can reach the beam (lets assume that part is still in all versions), your team can get whiped out, sword fleet can flop and the crucible destroyed before it can get inside the citadel... etc etc etc

the final choice in dark energy....if you choose to tell the reapers to go away or sacrifice only humans for the human reaper for example...you know the state of the galaxy, you know if the geth and living with quarians on rannoch or not...nothing has to eradicate that decision by blowing up all relays and/or possibly destroying all synthetics aswell in some ambigious way that we are not sure that happened.


Yes, it does affect variations of the ending, but these variations are too minor for BSN fans. They want significant impact of their choices. Even so, in the current ending, Shepard always gets to the beam in the same way and Hammer retreats. Your teammates at the beam, yes their fate can change. But if Sword flops, they only loose ships; the Crucible always makes it to the Citadel. Assets only affect the efficiency of the Crucible's beam, that is all and it is not enough closure for fans.

And if we did go with the dark energy plot, the way Drew talked about it, it is kind of iffy on if we find out if sacrificing humanity worked and the galaxy will be saved. Honestly, it sounds like a gamble for both choices--kill the Reapers and hope or work with the Reapers and hope--and one that BioWare may or may not have shown to its closure. Maybe it might have ended with Shepard saying s/he hoped they did the right thing and then credits, without showing if the sacrifice was worth it. Who knows? All supposition now, and the ending of the dark energy plot is not as important as how BioWare would have structured ME3's conflict and the buildup to the end.

#31
Klijpope

Klijpope
  • Members
  • 591 messages
It's a terrible plot. It makes less sense than what we get in ME3 (though so does Prometheus' plot) and has nothing to do with the main conflict and theme, introduced right at the start of ME1, that of organics vs synthetics (unambiguously shown during opening 5 minutes).

However, the dark energy theme could still impact dlc and even the ending. The Crucible has to use dark energy, and Gianna Parasini is conspicuous in her absence...

#32
Fedelm

Fedelm
  • Members
  • 17 messages

Sejborg wrote...

 Dark energy? Sounds like space magic to me. :wizard:


Well, and doesn't the whole biotic sound like space magic to you? :) I want to remind you, that biotics use dark energy for their powers.

The idea of Reapers saving the galaxy from falling appart because of dark energy seems more logical to me then the stupid conflict "organics vs synthetics" as it was presented in ME3.
> it's stuppid trying to "stop Dark Energy", as I said it's like stopping the wind because of hurricanes.
No, that is not stupid. The whole idea is the next: using mass effect devices, especially relays, organic beings provide accelerated death of the galaxy because of huge amount of dark energy as byproduct (as I understand it). Dark energy exists like wind or for example nuclear energy, that exists in our galaxy (on the Sun and etc) but the real threat begins when people start to use this type of energy. I mean, that until the species don't develop for discovering mass effect, they should not be worry about dark energy. But mass effect is the law of nature and very useful law I can say :). So, sooner or later it will be discovered by any intelligent species, and the treat of collapsing galaxy will become real. So, the ancient race that was so advanced to discover this rules of universe decided to gain control over the processes of galaxy development by creating the mechanism of cleaners - Reapers. Not very elegant choice, I admit. Primitive but effective.
But there is one fair question: for what purpose they built mass relays? WTF?! So they feed us and then they eat us? Not funny. But from the scientific point of view the existance of mass relays is one of the instruments for controlling the process - they ensure the cycle, not random but definite (50 000 years, yes?). And of course they make the process easier and faster.
And what about creating new Reapers from the genetic material of different species? Well, I suppose this is the process of reproduction and the demonstration of some kind of "humanistic manifestations" of the reaper's creators: this harvested species will be preserved, as we were told. Some kind of a museum, don't you think so? :)

Well, I realise that this is my insane interpretation, but for me such version make sense.:innocent:
And about dark energy I recommend you to read something, at least wikipedia :police: There are some theories that can be used for ME universe without the disruption of logic and game facts.

P.S. Sorry for my mistakes, I'm not native english-speaking person.

Modifié par Fedelm, 03 juin 2012 - 12:51 .


#33
Dezerte

Dezerte
  • Members
  • 388 messages

HBC Dresden wrote...

Dezman8 wrote...

A Renegade Shepard wouldn't, if he/she has only humanity's interests in mind he/she'll choose to destroy the Reapers.

While a Paragon might choose to sacrifice humanity for the "greater good".

Thing is, there are no right choices here. They are both bad and good in their own way, that's why I called it an interesting dilemma.


I'm not sure on your reasoning for the Paragon Shepard, because Paragon throughout the series is represented as the Doctor Who "nobody dies today" type of character. Paragon Shepard would never doom an entire (non-Reaperized) species to death to save the universe. A case in point: the real rachni queen in ME1 & 2. Renegade Shepard is represented throughout the game as the greater good type, although the cost is usually enormous and involves cutting corners. A case in point, the Renegade option in Priority: Tuchanka and if Wrex is still alive.

I think the current ending choice already excels at the concept of no right/wrong, just gray choices.


Notice that I said "might". Hell you're even saying a Paragon would never do that, didn't realize you were the authority on what's paragon or not. ;)

The choices in the current ending has no dilemma in them because of the lack of coherence and logic it's impossible to take the ending seriously. When I was presented with the choices I didn't feel that I was presented with an dilemma, it felt more like picking what the star-child hinted at (synthesis), there was no hard decision. Frankly, I picked an ending just because I wanted to see if something more happend, but it turns out this really was the ending. And let's not go into how "combing dna and synthetics to form a new kind of lifeform" makes no sense...

#34
wright1978

wright1978
  • Members
  • 8 116 messages

Dezman8 wrote...

Notice that I said "might". Hell you're even saying a Paragon would never do that, didn't realize you were the authority on what's paragon or not. ;)

The choices in the current ending has no dilemma in them because of the lack of coherence and logic it's impossible to take the ending seriously. When I was presented with the choices I didn't feel that I was presented with an dilemma, it felt more like picking what the star-child hinted at (synthesis), there was no hard decision. Frankly, I picked an ending just because I wanted to see if something more happend, but it turns out this really was the ending. And let's not go into how "combing dna and synthetics to form a new kind of lifeform" makes no sense...


Current ending left me feeling like i was listening to an insane religious extremist foaming at the mouth about some wackadoodle dire end of days scenario that could only be averted by everyone converting to his wackadoodle solution.
Dark energy could at least have left with a sense of scientific and imperical data on the fact the problem the reapers were trying to deal with existed even if i may not agree with their solution. 

#35
HBC Dresden

HBC Dresden
  • Members
  • 1 707 messages

Dezman8 wrote...

HBC Dresden wrote...

Dezman8 wrote...

A Renegade Shepard wouldn't, if he/she has only humanity's interests in mind he/she'll choose to destroy the Reapers.

While a Paragon might choose to sacrifice humanity for the "greater good".

Thing is, there are no right choices here. They are both bad and good in their own way, that's why I called it an interesting dilemma.


I'm not sure on your reasoning for the Paragon Shepard, because Paragon throughout the series is represented as the Doctor Who "nobody dies today" type of character. Paragon Shepard would never doom an entire (non-Reaperized) species to death to save the universe. A case in point: the real rachni queen in ME1 & 2. Renegade Shepard is represented throughout the game as the greater good type, although the cost is usually enormous and involves cutting corners. A case in point, the Renegade option in Priority: Tuchanka and if Wrex is still alive.

I think the current ending choice already excels at the concept of no right/wrong, just gray choices.


Notice that I said "might". Hell you're even saying a Paragon would never do that, didn't realize you were the authority on what's paragon or not. ;)

The choices in the current ending has no dilemma in them because of the lack of coherence and logic it's impossible to take the ending seriously. When I was presented with the choices I didn't feel that I was presented with an dilemma, it felt more like picking what the star-child hinted at (synthesis), there was no hard decision. Frankly, I picked an ending just because I wanted to see if something more happend, but it turns out this really was the ending. And let's not go into how "combing dna and synthetics to form a new kind of lifeform" makes no sense...


I'm not an authority, but I have recognized patterns on what BioWare seems to be doing with the Paragon stance. So, call it more of an analysis/interpetation. If you can bring up a Paragon decision that sacrificed someone/something for the greater good, (not the Virmire choice, there is no Paragon/Renegade distinction) I'm all ears (I can't think of anything but I may have missed something).

Sometimes incoherence is the result of dilemma. If you think the ending choice was not a hard decision, that is interesting. There are fans that absolutely hate control and some that think it's the most clever way of dealing with the Reapers. There are others that are morally repulsed by synthesis and others that think it is the best ending. And there are others that swear by destruction. If you want a peak into a constructive dilemma/debate over these choices, see this thread and skim several pages: http://social.biowar...ndex/11799672/1

#36
Ross42899

Ross42899
  • Members
  • 601 messages

friendlybatarian wrote...

This sounds even stupider than what we got.


No, it doesn't. IMO the Dark Energy ending sounds much better. At least for me, with this ending it feels that the Reapers (and the harvesting of organics) are fulfilling a real purpose. Not the stupid "we kill Organics so that they can't create AIs that kill organics" thing.

#37
Dezerte

Dezerte
  • Members
  • 388 messages

HBC Dresden wrote...

Dezman8 wrote...

HBC Dresden wrote...

Dezman8 wrote...

A Renegade Shepard wouldn't, if he/she has only humanity's interests in mind he/she'll choose to destroy the Reapers.

While a Paragon might choose to sacrifice humanity for the "greater good".

Thing is, there are no right choices here. They are both bad and good in their own way, that's why I called it an interesting dilemma.


I'm not sure on your reasoning for the Paragon Shepard, because Paragon throughout the series is represented as the Doctor Who "nobody dies today" type of character. Paragon Shepard would never doom an entire (non-Reaperized) species to death to save the universe. A case in point: the real rachni queen in ME1 & 2. Renegade Shepard is represented throughout the game as the greater good type, although the cost is usually enormous and involves cutting corners. A case in point, the Renegade option in Priority: Tuchanka and if Wrex is still alive.

I think the current ending choice already excels at the concept of no right/wrong, just gray choices.


Notice that I said "might". Hell you're even saying a Paragon would never do that, didn't realize you were the authority on what's paragon or not. ;)

The choices in the current ending has no dilemma in them because of the lack of coherence and logic it's impossible to take the ending seriously. When I was presented with the choices I didn't feel that I was presented with an dilemma, it felt more like picking what the star-child hinted at (synthesis), there was no hard decision. Frankly, I picked an ending just because I wanted to see if something more happend, but it turns out this really was the ending. And let's not go into how "combing dna and synthetics to form a new kind of lifeform" makes no sense...


I'm not an authority, but I have recognized patterns on what BioWare seems to be doing with the Paragon stance. So, call it more of an analysis/interpetation. If you can bring up a Paragon decision that sacrificed someone/something for the greater good, (not the Virmire choice, there is no Paragon/Renegade distinction) I'm all ears (I can't think of anything but I may have missed something).

Sometimes incoherence is the result of dilemma. If you think the ending choice was not a hard decision, that is interesting. There are fans that absolutely hate control and some that think it's the most clever way of dealing with the Reapers. There are others that are morally repulsed by synthesis and others that think it is the best ending. And there are others that swear by destruction. If you want a peak into a constructive dilemma/debate over these choices, see this thread and skim several pages: http://social.biowar...ndex/11799672/1


I watched the video (not the whole thing but I got the gist of it).

I agree with the video creator's view, but in difference from others who find it okay I dislike it. The only way that ending works is if IT is true.

So again, there's no dilemma for me. I picked synthetis because it's the best choice, also realizing that these choices could be symbolical like the video pointed out.

The major misunderstanding that seems to be between anti and pro -enders is that at least some of the anti-enders (like me) dislike the ending because it is illogical and breaks the narrative coherence, not because we didn't understand it, it was bittersweet, sad etc. If IT were true however these things could be salvaged, but IT is just wishful thinking at this point.

So no matter how much you want to argue that the ending is fine you can't argue facts. And the facts are that there's illogical reasoning presented by the star-child and it's also filled with plot-holes (like joker fleeing, squademates teleporting to the ship etc).

I'll say this about how I reason in life: "I try to use the intelectual part of my brain as much as I can, even when it brings me sadness I still think the truth is more important than living in ignorance."

#38
Fixers0

Fixers0
  • Members
  • 4 434 messages
A Well excuted dark energy plot would have been better then the current one,

But since Mass Effect 2 was just a bunch offroading, it was allready pretty much impossible to create a decent plot for the conclusion of the series.

#39
Il Divo

Il Divo
  • Members
  • 9 775 messages
I would have gladly taken this over the ending we got, minus the bit about humans being used to make a “special” Reaper, just have this be another step in the cycle. The Reapers are beings with a greater chance of stopping the spread of dark energy, due to their “ascencion”.

#40
cindercatz

cindercatz
  • Members
  • 1 354 messages

Feanor_II wrote...

cindercatz wrote...

Except that dark energy is real, and the entropic principle is an actual thing, and there's an actual, eons down the road supposed deadline. So yes, this is much, much smarter than what we got. You'd still have to beat the Reapers. I think the IT should have played into it like it should play in now. I don't think humans should be particularly special in the story, genetically or otherwise. Why so? Because we like to think everything centers around us? So the human reaper is still a bad idea, but otherwise, it's better than what we got, and if you let character and choices on display play into both the actual ending and the epilogue, it's much better than what we've got. If you do all that and preserve the relays for future games, is perfect, or perfect enough.

* what might have been :-/

edit: Well, dark energy has no motivation. It's the universal constant, by another name. It just is. But it would have given the Reapers themselves purpose and a believable explanation, not to mention maintained their autonomy. The Reapers are the enemy, not dark energy. Dark energy to the universe would be seen like a comet headed toward your planet, and the question is what do you do about it.

First of all we should not confuse Dark Energy with Antimatter...... I don't know much about the subject (my elder brother is more into that, I'm more for History).

OK, that has a scientifical basis..... but a few notes:
- Like it or not synthetics Vs organics is a subject that has been more present in previous games than Dark Energy had (only strated to be hinted in ME2), in ME1 it was even the central subject
- While it could be a good "plot asset" that premise of creating reapers to stop Dark energy it's simply absurd!:
> OK a civilization creates a hell of a technology
> Latter they discover that it's usage consumes the Galaxy or Universe......
> .............. so instead of stop using that technology, disable Mass Relays, investigate alternatives and leave messages in that direction for future civilizations.........
> ......... they sacrifice themselves to construct massive battleships that make even a greater use of than lethal technology and leave Mass Effect tech pieces scatered through the galaxy as lures for other civilization an periodicaly slaughter them brutally to construct other ships
> After each slaughtering they dissapear on the edge of the galaxy and enter "stand-by" mode.
- Not to tell that IMO it's stuppid trying to "stop Dark Energy", as I said it's like stopping the wind because of hurricanes.


You misunderstood me. I never mentioned anti-matter. Dark energy is not a bullet, it's an omni-present force ("constant" as an observational description). When you get to a certain point of developement as a society, you may look to eternity as your future, and seeing that eternity is not in the cards, that there is something that, as far as you can tell, is inevitably going to wipe you out no matter what you do, depending on how fatalistic you are, you may look to defeat your fate at the end of time. It's not that something is going to wipe you out in your lifetime or your far descendants' lifetimes, it's that eventually you're going to cease to be altogether, along with everything else that's vibrant in the universe as you see it. You might decide to try to stave that off, and failing that, simply preserve yourself through until after whatever happens next (over eons). You might even build an arc. Perhaps that is what the Reapers were meant to be, active still, to observe, to see if anyone of similar value might possibly join you. Perhaps, if you see yourself, as the Reaper afterward, of potentially attaining that salvation you sought as a species before, you might then offer it to others.

"Salvation through destruction"

What might cause you to look at the universe and your species on such a long term, almost unfathomable (or only abstractly fathomable) scale and fear? Maybe you've gotten to such a point that you've become practically immortal. Maybe those "beings of light" actually existed, after a certain point. What if they are the first Reaper, and they're offering immortality of a sense to other advanced species? If that kind of salvation is the goal, the Reapers throughout the series make sense, and they serve a purpose other than sweeper. Maybe the reason that they really always maintained the relays, other than potentially finding more eezo, (and I always thought eezo burning in that star was responsible for Haestrom..) is that they really don't care about staving off universal entropy, being seemingly impossible, so who cares if you speed it up a bit? Maybe your goal is to ride your arc through it, with whoever else you 'save' along the way, and the relays help you to do that.. That idea of the Reapers as a museum of past civilizations, in their bio-synthetic inner world, would not be far off.

So whoever the first Reaper society were, they looked at the far flung, eventual end of the universe as one would regard a large comet headed for your planet in a future you can't change, i.e. inevitable doom. So, if you see that as personally threatening to all that you've become, and you're so advanced as to see yourself personally effected, and to see yourself as your galaxy's shephard, so to speak, what do you do? Do you accept your eventual fate head on, continue to live as you have, or, given the option, do you build an arc and attempt to beat it? And that would be the question to Shepard. All the Reapers are species that someone somewhere decided to accept the Reaper's offer. And yes, it's very much like indoctrination, because you're being brought about to the Reaper point of view. I think there should have been an indoctrination choice anyway, and then you get to see it actively play out.

You add in all the representation of choices we didn't get this time, all the personal resolution stuff, and you get this dilemma and motivation instead of what we got, I think you've got a much, much stronger ending. It's certainly far more coherant.

#41
Dexi

Dexi
  • Members
  • 898 messages

Ross42899 wrote...

friendlybatarian wrote...

This sounds even stupider than what we got.


No, it doesn't. IMO the Dark Energy ending sounds much better. At least for me, with this ending it feels that the Reapers (and the harvesting of organics) are fulfilling a real purpose. Not the stupid "we kill Organics so that they can't create AIs that kill organics" thing.


Fulfilling a purpose... yeah...

"Dawg, so... mass effect tech = dark energy... dark energy = destruction... Let's give mass effect tech to everybody LOL!" 

#42
Fedelm

Fedelm
  • Members
  • 17 messages

cindercatz wrote...

You add in all the representation of choices we didn't get this time, all the personal resolution stuff, and you get this dilemma and motivation instead of what we got, I think you've got a much, much stronger ending. It's certainly far more coherant.


I'd say, it's certainly far more philosophical too. And this is what I can call the real art. The new way to represent eternal conflict in minds - much more deeper interpretation of Paragon/Renegat way of thinking. It was only one step for promoting videogames to another branch of "high art" tree... and they failed turning it into traditional bubble gum. Now there is no chance to speak about "artistic view", I suppose.
There is such proverb in Russia: "Начали за здравие, кончили за упокой" (something like "Begin on a merry note, but finish on a sad one"). Well, that's really so.

#43
Fedelm

Fedelm
  • Members
  • 17 messages

Dexi wrote...

Ross42899 wrote...

friendlybatarian wrote...

This sounds even stupider than what we got.


No, it doesn't. IMO the Dark Energy ending sounds much better. At least for me, with this ending it feels that the Reapers (and the harvesting of organics) are fulfilling a real purpose. Not the stupid "we kill Organics so that they can't create AIs that kill organics" thing.


Fulfilling a purpose... yeah...

"Dawg, so... mass effect tech = dark energy... dark energy = destruction... Let's give mass effect tech to everybody LOL!" 


So, you think that no one ever would guess? Races won't do it by themselves? Science wouldn't develop? I don't think so.

Modifié par Fedelm, 03 juin 2012 - 03:46 .


#44
DWH1982

DWH1982
  • Members
  • 2 619 messages

Fedelm wrote...

So, you think that no one ever would guess? Races won't do it by themselves? Science wouldn't develop? I don't think so.


This.

It's not as illogical as it seems. Most races would develop mass effect tech on their own. The Reapers leave the mass relay systems and little tidbits of technology so that races develop it the way the Reapers want them to. If I recall correctly, Soverign more or less says as much.

That, in turn, makes the varying races easier to harvest when the Reapers come to repair the damage and restart the cycle. There's no guesswork as to what galactic infrastructure will look like in each cycle, because each cycle relies on the mass relay system and the technology that was left behind from previous cycles. Were it not for that, it's likely that each new cycle would discover the fundamentals of mass effect tech, but go off in wildly different directions with it - which could make the Reapers' job harder.

Anyway, that's how I'd explain it.

Modifié par DWH1982, 03 juin 2012 - 04:03 .


#45
Dexi

Dexi
  • Members
  • 898 messages

cindercatz wrote...

Feanor_II wrote...

cindercatz wrote...

Except that dark energy is real, and the entropic principle is an actual thing, and there's an actual, eons down the road supposed deadline. So yes, this is much, much smarter than what we got. You'd still have to beat the Reapers. I think the IT should have played into it like it should play in now. I don't think humans should be particularly special in the story, genetically or otherwise. Why so? Because we like to think everything centers around us? So the human reaper is still a bad idea, but otherwise, it's better than what we got, and if you let character and choices on display play into both the actual ending and the epilogue, it's much better than what we've got. If you do all that and preserve the relays for future games, is perfect, or perfect enough.

* what might have been :-/

edit: Well, dark energy has no motivation. It's the universal constant, by another name. It just is. But it would have given the Reapers themselves purpose and a believable explanation, not to mention maintained their autonomy. The Reapers are the enemy, not dark energy. Dark energy to the universe would be seen like a comet headed toward your planet, and the question is what do you do about it.

First of all we should not confuse Dark Energy with Antimatter...... I don't know much about the subject (my elder brother is more into that, I'm more for History).

OK, that has a scientifical basis..... but a few notes:
- Like it or not synthetics Vs organics is a subject that has been more present in previous games than Dark Energy had (only strated to be hinted in ME2), in ME1 it was even the central subject
- While it could be a good "plot asset" that premise of creating reapers to stop Dark energy it's simply absurd!:
> OK a civilization creates a hell of a technology
> Latter they discover that it's usage consumes the Galaxy or Universe......
> .............. so instead of stop using that technology, disable Mass Relays, investigate alternatives and leave messages in that direction for future civilizations.........
> ......... they sacrifice themselves to construct massive battleships that make even a greater use of than lethal technology and leave Mass Effect tech pieces scatered through the galaxy as lures for other civilization an periodicaly slaughter them brutally to construct other ships
> After each slaughtering they dissapear on the edge of the galaxy and enter "stand-by" mode.
- Not to tell that IMO it's stuppid trying to "stop Dark Energy", as I said it's like stopping the wind because of hurricanes.


You misunderstood me. I never mentioned anti-matter. Dark energy is not a bullet, it's an omni-present force ("constant" as an observational description).


So is the force of evolution, which dictates a tech singularity ( reasearch it ) happens. As a Tech Singularity is an event horizon...

When you get to a certain point of developement as a society, you may look to eternity as your future, and seeing that eternity is not in the cards, that there is something that, as far as you can tell, is inevitably going to wipe you out no matter what you do, depending on how fatalistic you are, you may look to defeat your fate at the end of time.


Similarly, when a civilzation, after a Tech Singularity, reaches the stage that humans refer to as "post-humans" ( the stage you actually talk about) - the alternative being wiped out by A.I ~ so, from an evolutional imperative, it's either posthuman ( as in postorganic) with technology augumentation of the species mind, or being wiped out by the A.I, depends on what slightly different path of evolution one society/culture might take ~ - indeed, one society might view it's future in eternity.

A posthuman status ( or postorganic), given the unthinkable processing power it gives, might make a posthuman physically and psychically look godlike, compared to the current standards. 

Even though a postorganic has a godlike status compared to the current most inteligent organic being ( the humans), might be little as in comparison with a totally artificial deity. Imagine o Dyson Sphere worth of energy as an A.I. That's the "evolutional" mark an A.I might take. 
A posthuman society might view it's totally artificial counterpart as threatening, and vice versa. As illustrated by the Geth-Quarian conflict, fear from one side might cause hostilities from the other. Let's say a postorganic society with direct access to its noosphere computes that A.I are bound to be more efficient and with most likely no spiritual attachement to their existance, they could wipe out organics, for a bunch of different reasons - one might be as additional energy source, other could be power competitivity, a real big number of reasons. 

As the scenario of an A.I striving over it's organic creators is deemed likely, this A.I, if unchecked, growing dangerous might be seen as an - over the span of the Universe's life, because, as established, this society sees the lifespan of the Universe as the lifespan of its own - imminent danger. 

 It's not that something is going to wipe you out in your lifetime or your far descendants' lifetimes, it's that eventually you're going to cease to be altogether, along with everything else that's vibrant in the universe as you see it.


Exactly the same as in the case I have presented.

You might decide to try to stave that off, and failing that, simply preserve yourself through until after whatever happens next (over eons). You might even build an arc. Perhaps that is what the Reapers were meant to be, active still, to observe, to see if anyone of similar value might possibly join you.


Exactly! Because of the selfimage of Gods, the society ( possibly a communal mind, at this point) would think of ways to ensure that no AI deity ever takes away the chance of organics to reaching the pseudo, or partial "Omega Point" ( research it) that this community has reached. As ascension of the postorganic mind would have progressed, by the laws of evolution and efficiency, general mind usage and thought entropy would be sought to be rezolved by implementing a net of consciousnesses ( as I've already said, a communal mind), similar to a Geth Consensus, or even more similar to how a Reaper's mind is described to work. 

As such, at least mentally, the society ( or communal mind) might eventually take the physical form of something that at least resembles a Reaper ( with furthur modifications in the future, to facilitate the Reap, the Reap not being concieved now). 

Deciding that no A.I ever should be allowed to take organics the right of ascending to the point of what now would be post-postorganic, ( because, if unchecked, the evolution of A.I would take them far above anything remotely organic), the Reapers implement the cycle.

And what does the cycle do in their opinion? It permits them to ASCEND EVERY ORGANIC RACE with the bare minimum of intelligence required. The Reapers fastforward them through transorganic and postorganic stages of evolution, practically making every race a god, while ensuring that at no time there will be someone who could halt this evolution. 

 Perhaps, if you see yourself, as the Reaper afterward, of potentially attaining that salvation you sought as a species before, you might then offer it to others.


Exactly. Being brought to the level of post-postorganic, God at least in mind, you'd want to share the unimaginable brain/computational power with others. Might seem brutal, but you make sure every inteliigent organic race will have the chance of getting to the peak of evolution ( because current commonly accepted theoretical streams of evolutions dictate that at some point, we as humans will enter a Reaper-like stage of existence - if we survive long enough as a species) even though apparently you destroy that race. 

"Salvation through destruction"

What might cause you to look at the universe and your species on such a long term, almost unfathomable (or only abstractly fathomable) scale and fear? Maybe you've gotten to such a point that you've become practically immortal. Maybe those "beings of light" actually existed, after a certain point. What if they are the first Reaper, and they're offering immortality of a sense to other advanced species? If that kind of salvation is the goal, the Reapers throughout the series make sense, and they serve a purpose other than sweeper.


Exactly as I have pointed out! Beings of light, apex of evolution decide to Reap, to share and ensure nobody could prevent them from sharing.

Maybe the reason that they really always maintained the relays, other than potentially finding more eezo, (and I always thought eezo burning in that star was responsible for Haestrom..) is that they really don't care about staving off universal entropy, being seemingly impossible, so who cares if you speed it up a bit? Maybe your goal is to ride your arc through it, with whoever else you 'save' along the way, and the relays help you to do that.. That idea of the Reapers as a museum of past civilizations, in their bio-synthetic inner world, would not be far off.


And that practically wouldn't differ with a thing, as explained, from the current Reaper motivations.

So whoever the first Reaper society were, they looked at the far flung, eventual end of the universe as one would regard a large comet headed for your planet in a future you can't change, i.e. inevitable doom. So, if you see that as personally threatening to all that you've become, and you're so advanced as to see yourself personally effected, and to see yourself as your galaxy's shephard, so to speak, what do you do? Do you accept your eventual fate head on, continue to live as you have, or, given the option, do you build an arc and attempt to beat it?


Or in this case, you build an arc and attempt to never let it happen.



In the end, I wanted to prove that these endings are not so remotely different, with enough thought given.
And from a logical standpoint, it would be more logical and more in with Reapers' "salvation through destruction" if they fastforward every civilization to the post-postorganic apex of evolution, that they could reach anyway if there wouldn't be pesty A.I, and prevent A.I's from preventing organic civilization of... oh, you get it. 

Modifié par Dexi, 03 juin 2012 - 04:11 .


#46
cindercatz

cindercatz
  • Members
  • 1 354 messages
@Fedelm

Thanks. :-) That's basically what I thought we'd get beforehand, but it just wasn't realized for whatever reasons, unfortunately. :-/

@Dexi

Yes, I get it, always have. :-) But I'd point out that my ending and your ending, while not so different, are very different from what we actually got, which was:

-practically no exposition
-no free will and free thought, independence and sentience of the Reapers themselves ("I created the Reapers." "You can control the Reapers." etc.)
-nonsense choices that destroy and/or homogenize the universe rather indiscriminately, synthesize being the worst because it leads to total biological entropy (not to mention is totally inconsistent with the capabilities of the sci-fi on display in the Mass Effect series, Reaper or no)
-the destruction of the mass relays
-no conscious option to agree with or reject the Reapers' goals and logic
-following in that vein, no chance to play out indoctrination or even to discuss the Reaper pov it promotes, only the possibility that the end is indoctrination, and that it has no resolution
-no display of choices or following consequences
-no character resolution of any sort

And I'd say that while our two arguements are really nuanced versions of the same thing, universal entropy is a better starting and ending motivation than the tech singularity, primarily because the "beings of light" would have already been through the latter, while any half-way advanced society would know (as far as we can tell) that entropy is coming at some point, or at least seems likely based on our limited scale observations (who knows how long the lights would've been watching), and the closer to ageless, timeless, masters of all you can see you get, the more that dead stop at the end of the road starts to matter (whether there truly is a dead dispersal or just a transition to something else is another matter). So you have a threat to the first Reaper civilization itself, rather than a potential crux that every civilization must eventually meet, but that can go a number of different ways. The A.I. Dyson Sphere itself shouldn't really be seen as a threat to others unless you wonder near it in some way that it views as potentially threatening, because it's chief outside concerns would be efficiency and self preservation. It would likely isolate itself the best it could, and power itself by limitless solar energy.

Both concepts together do an exceptional job of describing the perspective and motivation of the Reapers themselves, and that's what should have happened. Not one or the other. And not a flawed, cracked version of one.

edit: typos that I caught.. tired

Modifié par cindercatz, 03 juin 2012 - 05:35 .


#47
LegionMan

LegionMan
  • Members
  • 275 messages
 Seeing the chatter between forum members about the merits of this scrapped ending reminds me:  we never needed to know WHY the Reapers harvest the ME galaxy every 50k years.  They are at their most threatening when we know as little about them as possible - and whatever small tidbits the story might throw our way are more bad than good.

Modifié par LegionMan, 03 juin 2012 - 05:46 .


#48
leminzplz

leminzplz
  • Members
  • 228 messages
Even though that article was brief, I actually like the sound of that than the full version of what we got in-game.
I'd probably dislike ME3 more if every single choice I made changed the ending...if I did one thing wrong (like, I dunno, punching the reporter in each game) I'd have to start the whole thing again, then realize I did something else wrong...agh.
But this ending doesn't seem as evil; the Reapers are having to do this for the future species, and they're defending the galaxy which they live in too...awesome.

#49
AlanC9

AlanC9
  • Members
  • 35 785 messages

HBC Dresden wrote...
Yes, it does affect variations of the ending, but these variations are too minor for BSN fans. They want significant impact of their choices. Even so, in the current ending, Shepard always gets to the beam in the same way and Hammer retreats. Your teammates at the beam, yes their fate can change. But if Sword flops, they only loose ships; the Crucible always makes it to the Citadel. Assets only affect the efficiency of the Crucible's beam, that is all and it is not enough closure for fans.


That's true, but... isn't that also true of the way most Bioware games have ended?

In BG1, BG2, ToB, NWN OC, and SoU, the only thing that changes about the endgame is the companions you bring along. HotU has a slight variation on this theme since you have a chance to bypass the endgame battle and instantly hose the endboss.

In KotOR, you have one big LS/DS choice before the endgame which determines your final destiny regardless of anything you've done up to that point. The LS/DS paths have some different cutscenes, an extra boss battle on the LS path, and very different final scenes. However, the vast majority of what you do in the endgame is identical. DA:A is essentially the same as KotOR except that the choice comes later and isn't categorized by morality.

ME1 has one big choice during the endgame that controls two cutscenes. Other than that the endgame is identical for everyone. ME2 has slight variations in the endgame because of loyalty effects on companion performance, though all that really controls is some death cutscenes. There's also a final choice that gives you different ending cutscenes.

And then there's DA:O, which is an outlier aong Bioware games and RPGs generally.

So I guess the question this leads me to is: why is it that endgame designs which have worked for Bio forever, and worked in previous ME installments, have suddenly become unacceptable with ME3?

And if we did go with the dark energy plot, the way Drew talked about it, it is kind of iffy on if we find out if sacrificing humanity worked and the galaxy will be saved. Honestly, it sounds like a gamble for both choices--kill the Reapers and hope or work with the Reapers and hope--and one that BioWare may or may not have shown to its closure. Maybe it might have ended with Shepard saying s/he hoped they did the right thing and then credits, without showing if the sacrifice was worth it. Who knows? All supposition now, and the ending of the dark energy plot is not as important as how BioWare would have structured ME3's conflict and the buildup to the end.


I agree there's no closure with the dark ending plot. OTOH, Bioware got away with this in DA:O with the Dark Ritual -- when that game ends we don't know whether that would lead to disaster or not. Edit: but as pointed out to me in another thread, the DR wasn't as big in DA:O as DE would have been in in ME3, and in any event DA:O wasn't supposed to be the last of a trilogy.

Though I don't suppose the endgame choice mattered anyway. Would any player have actually sacrificed humanity on the Reapers' say-so? I find this just about inconceivable.

Modifié par AlanC9, 03 juin 2012 - 06:24 .


#50
warfighter 1820

warfighter 1820
  • Members
  • 78 messages
If added unto the current ME3 we have now, it would make a terrible ending, even worse than the RGB end we have now. However, we have no idea of knowing how drastically the game itself would have been changed and how the dark energy plot would have been fleshed out over the course of the game and if the ending would have ultimately made more sense and been awesome or stupid as it sounds now