565 réponses à ce sujet

[The Angry One]

Skyhawk02 wrote...

You're wrong about Saren, Saren was indoctrinated and therefore couldn't have initiated Synthesis.  The Catalyst says that The Illusive Man couldn't Control the reapers because he was indoctrinated so it is safe to assume the same rules applied to Saren.

No it doesn't. Synthesis is pretty much galactic scale indoctrination in any case.

And as far as the themes of Mass Effect goes, I am not a literary critic, but I would agree that beating the odds is a theme of Mass Effect.  By having Shepard be the first organic to ever activate the crucible, I think it is easy to see that Mass Effect 3's ending is consistent with this theme of beating the odds.  What Shepard does at the end has never been done before therefore by definition it is against the odds.

Doing something that the villain approves of and desires cannot be said to be defying the odds.

[MisterJB]

The Angry One wrote...
So let's fight genocide with more genocide! Yeehaw!
Come on now.

Who would have tought it requires dirtying one's hands to end a war.
I mean, really? Never in the history of our race, I tell you.

[The Angry One]

xsdob wrote...

You keep saying it is submission, but it doens't seem that way to any logical person around.

Is it submission to use the masters weapon to kill him? To strangle him with his own whip as control does? Or to call his bluff of killing him like destroy does?

It is submission to do what your enemy wants, how your enemy wants under circumstances your enemy allows to promote your enemy's ultimate agenda.

[nicocap24]

The Angry One wrote...

Skyhawk02 wrote...

You're wrong about Saren, Saren was indoctrinated and therefore couldn't have initiated Synthesis.  The Catalyst says that The Illusive Man couldn't Control the reapers because he was indoctrinated so it is safe to assume the same rules applied to Saren.

No it doesn't. Synthesis is pretty much galactic scale indoctrination in any case.

And as far as the themes of Mass Effect goes, I am not a literary critic, but I would agree that beating the odds is a theme of Mass Effect.  By having Shepard be the first organic to ever activate the crucible, I think it is easy to see that Mass Effect 3's ending is consistent with this theme of beating the odds.  What Shepard does at the end has never been done before therefore by definition it is against the odds.

Doing something that the villain approves of and desires cannot be said to be defying the odds.

The only thing the Catalyst desires is Synthesis. You have two more choices.

Modifié par nicocap24, 30 juin 2012 - 09:11 .

[The Angry One]

xsdob wrote...

but you refuse to remove the catalyst, therefore it's still around to tell them what to do.

Because the reject ending is designed as an insult that freezes our Shepard into inaction when they should be calling the fleet to eliminate the Catalyst right there and then.

[xsdob]

MisterJB wrote...

The Angry One wrote...
So let's fight genocide with more genocide! Yeehaw!
Come on now.

Who would have tought it requires dirtying one's hands to end a war.
I mean, really? Never in the history of our race, I tell you.

My grandparents siblings were on the reciving end of a nuke, no war ever ends without having to commit autrositiys.

The only difference is that one side gets to brush it off when they write the history books.

[nicocap24]

The Angry One wrote...

xsdob wrote...

but you refuse to remove the catalyst, therefore it's still around to tell them what to do.

Because the reject ending is designed as an insult that freezes our Shepard into inaction when they should be calling the fleet to eliminate the Catalyst right there and then.

How would they eliminate the Catalyst? By blowing up the Citadel? There's a lot of innocent people in the Citadel.

[MisterJB]

The Angry One wrote...
No it doesn't. Synthesis is pretty much galactic scale indoctrination in any case.

Nonsense. It's the improvement of all life. Organics are perfected through technology to diminish our reliance in machines and synthetics are perfected through knowledge so they may fully understand organics. That is all.
People are still who they are and they can pursue whatever it they wish to pursue.

[Arcadian Legend]

nicocap24 wrote...

It's supposed to damage all technology, so I've considered that it may kill the quarians. I still think it's the better choice because it will end the threat once and for all. Of course I feel bad for the sacrifices that have to be made, but the Reapers need to be defeated, and as I see it, destroying them is the way to do it. If you don't like that choice, you still have control. The Catalyst will be erased and replaced by Shepard.

It doesn't kill quarians. For one thing Tali is seen alive at Destroy's memorial wall.

[xsdob]

The Angry One wrote...

xsdob wrote...

You keep saying it is submission, but it doens't seem that way to any logical person around.

Is it submission to use the masters weapon to kill him? To strangle him with his own whip as control does? Or to call his bluff of killing him like destroy does?

It is submission to do what your enemy wants, how your enemy wants under circumstances your enemy allows to promote your enemy's ultimate agenda.

The ending epilouge seems to say otherwise to shepard doing what the reapers wanted.

Besides, what is their ultimater agenda now that synthesis will no longer be picked?

[The Angry One]

nicocap24 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

xsdob wrote...

but you refuse to remove the catalyst, therefore it's still around to tell them what to do.

Because the reject ending is designed as an insult that freezes our Shepard into inaction when they should be calling the fleet to eliminate the Catalyst right there and then.

How would they eliminate the Catalyst? By blowing up the Citadel? There's a lot of innocent people in the Citadel.

By blowing up the Presidium tower, where the Catalyst's core likely is, as that's where the Crucible interfaces with it.
And really, as a destroy supporter you're bringing up the people on the Citadel? A significant number of them will have died when you shot that tube, shelters or no.

[TheBlackBaron]

The Angry One wrote...

You speak of petulance while promoting total obedience to a being that takes it's toys, leaves and kills everyone if you dare argue with it.

Or shoot it. Which doesn't threaten it at all. I mean, if I were a hologram it wouldn't bother me, but then I'm not a petulant psychopath like it is.

Oh, you mean like Shepard does in the Reject ending? 

"What's that? I can't just shoot my way out of this? What do you mean I can't just follow my morals and make everything better!? Screw you guys, I'm going home! You can all just let the Reapers kill you!"

If Destroy means the Geth survive while everybody else goes, so be it. Neither Control nor Synthesis is a palatable option for my headcanon Shepard.

So let's fight genocide with more genocide! Yeehaw!
Come on now.

Let's let the Reapers commit galactic genocide because I'm too squeamish to make a difficult decision!

Garrus has a relevant conversation about the difficult calculus of war. We're on the extreme end of that when it's factoring one genocide against many, but the principle remains. 

[Yalision]

It's done. That said, no it doesn't bother me. I accept that he is a flawed A.I. stuck in a logic loop. Admiral Hackett himself reiterates that conventional warfare isn't possible. Whether or not you choose to believe the A.I. child is up to you.

At the end of the day, EMS is a gameplay mechanic. No matter how high you make it, once you reach a threshold, your fleet really doesn't become any stronger in the canon. If it did, then that would be a different story.

Come the end of the game, Shepard has nothing else to go on but hope and a choice. The fleet's purpose is the Crucible. The entire game is about building and escorting the device; and depending on your EMS, how much damage it takes as it makes its way to dock with the Citadel. I'm very comfortable with the fact that the A.I. child reveals himself to be stuck in a logic loop he can't recognize for what it is. Or maybe he does? Either way, the choices in front of you exist whether or not you choose to believe the information given to you is accurate. Which is nice now that Shepard can choose to act on the limited information or stand and die - because again, it was stated before and during the ending that conventional warfare is not a solution. If it was why even bother with the Crucible?

I can accept that. To make conventional warfare and option would make me raise an eyebrow about the Crucible as a plot device at all. To that end you have to question the Crucible and whether or not you liked it in the game at all. Odds are if you're still unhappy after the EC, you'll say no.

Is the ending perfect? No. I still don't know how Anderson ended up at the end before me, or where the Illusive Man came from. Do I think the Normandy evac was awkward? Yes, somewhat, but I can reason with what was going on around it and accept the possibility. Beyond that, the A.I. child's voice is the voice of the actual A.I. rather than the interpretation it was trying to make for Shepard for his initial conversation. That is neither a big deal, nor surprise to me.

At the end of the day, what the Catalyst said was true. The endings speak for themselves, and the Mass Effect team made them as direct as possible. What subtle hints there are to anything otherwise is, to me, the reflection of a desperate mind looking for reason to argue against something it still doesn't find satisfactory. If that's the case, better luck elsewhere. I look forward to giving Bioware my attention again - albeit cautious.

[v TricKy v]

The Reapers still get beaten by next cycle with our help. They dont even have to fight them. Liara gives all the knowledge we have to the next cycle and says that the crucible doesnt work.

[Skyhawk02]

The Angry One wrote...

So let's fight genocide with more genocide! Yeehaw!
Come on now.

Maybe you just aren't prepared to face the mature themes present in Mass Effect.  I agree that it is difficult to imagine a scenario where mass genocide could be not only justified, but morally good.  However, I submit that if such a scenario does exist (which it may not) then it looks something like the destroy option in Mass Effect.  Kill millions now to save billions later.  

Might I add that this is the kind of reasoning that people used to justify using atomic weapons in World War 2 and even now innocents are being killed in the middle east as collateral damage, in the hope that it is worth sacrificing them to stop more violence from occurring.

Even if you disagree with this reasoning (I don't know how I feel about it yet, this requires more reflection) these are very relevant issues worth discussion, and Art forms like Video games are an excellent way to have and stimulate that discussion.

[hwf]

The EC was an excellent improvement over the succinct RGB ending that ME3 had; I wanted to hate it but instead I ended up liking it.

Yet I'm not a fan of the way ME3 ended. Even the EC has a few issues with the way they resolved/retconned the loose ends and even introduced a few new ones like the evacuation of Shepard's squadmates a few yards away from the finish line in direct line of sight from Mr Evil.
The thing that bothered me the most about ME3's end is that the Catalyst AI was not foreshadowed: Only deep into Act 3, at the end of Thessia, we get one line of dialogue that might be taken as a hint towards it. You again get just one other line of dialogue at the end of Cronos station that might be taken as a hint as well.

The Catalyst AI as a deceptive manipulator is great, in my opinion. It definately bothers me and that gives it character.
Besides, the thing has had millions of years to rationalize it's decision.
All the choices you get to resolve the conflict are abhorrent in some way and that's something I really like as well.

[nicocap24]

Arcadian Legend wrote...

nicocap24 wrote...

It's supposed to damage all technology, so I've considered that it may kill the quarians. I still think it's the better choice because it will end the threat once and for all. Of course I feel bad for the sacrifices that have to be made, but the Reapers need to be defeated, and as I see it, destroying them is the way to do it. If you don't like that choice, you still have control. The Catalyst will be erased and replaced by Shepard.

It doesn't kill quarians. For one thing Tali is seen alive at Destroy's memorial wall.

Oops, that's true. Well, my point was that I would still do it if the quarians were killed. It would feel really bad but it's a sacrifice that needs to be made. (It's nice that it doesn't kill quarians, though!)

[Captiosus77]

KotorEffect3 wrote...
Those Geth are dead anyway if you don't use the crucible.

Exactly.
Over three games we saw just how easily the Geth are manipulated. Legion's messianic moment is touching but if I reject the options and doom the galaxy to death the Geth will simply be assimilated into the Reaper collective (since they can't be 'harvested').

I understand the genocide angle but, realistically the entire point of the ME franchise was the genocide of the Reapers. To end the threat of these dark beings who show up every 50,000 years and decide to wipe the galaxy clean of advanced civilization until the next cycle. To bring the galaxy to a point where we, not the Reapers, control our future.

[Torrible]

Skyhawk02 wrote...

Torrible wrote...

I think that although he thought that Synthesis was the best way to end the cycle, he was unsure. Somehow he decided that Shepard was in the best position to make that choice.

Not only that, but I believe that due to a flaw in his programming the Catalyst was unable to make that choice, as seen by the rejection ending.

Interesting. Before that, he said that the creation of the crucible changed him, created new possibilities but he can't make them happen. 

[Jackums]

The Angry One wrote...

Skyhawk02 wrote...

You're
wrong about Saren, Saren was indoctrinated and therefore couldn't have
initiated Synthesis.  The Catalyst says that The Illusive Man couldn't
Control the reapers because he was indoctrinated so it is safe to assume
the same rules applied to Saren.

No it doesn't. Synthesis is pretty much galactic scale indoctrination in any case.

Proof?

The Angry One wrote...

xsdob wrote...

You keep saying it is submission, but it doens't seem that way to any logical person around.

Is it submission to use the masters weapon to kill him? To strangle him with his own whip as control does? Or to call his bluff of killing him like destroy does?

It is submission to do what your enemy wants, how your enemy wants under circumstances your enemy allows to promote your enemy's ultimate agenda.

No, because the Catalyst is clearly against Destroy and also states it doesn't like the idea of Shepard replacing it. Therefore it's anti-Destroy and anti-Control. Synthesis is the solution to the problem it was designed to solve -- whether said problem is an inevitability or not; it believes so -- therefore of course it's what it would most prefer Shepard choose.

Modifié par JackumsD, 30 juin 2012 - 09:15 .

[The Angry One]

MisterJB wrote...

The Angry One wrote...
No it doesn't. Synthesis is pretty much galactic scale indoctrination in any case.

Nonsense. It's the improvement of all life.

Every time someone says something like this I die a little inside.

Organics are perfected through technology to diminish our reliance in machines and synthetics are perfected through knowledge so they may fully understand organics. That is all.
People are still who they are and they can pursue whatever it they wish to pursue.

That is just another platitude brought to you by the resident lying, manipulative genocidal maniac the Catalyst.
Synthesis is a process that violates all life, makes it the same, stagnates their growth, links them forever to the Reapers and forces them to like it and maintain peace through brainwashing.
It is the most vile and disgusting outcome I have ever witnessed in a game.

[KillerJudgement]

The Angry One wrote...

Skyhawk02 wrote...

You're wrong about Saren, Saren was indoctrinated and therefore couldn't have initiated Synthesis.  The Catalyst says that The Illusive Man couldn't Control the reapers because he was indoctrinated so it is safe to assume the same rules applied to Saren.

No it doesn't. Synthesis is pretty much galactic scale indoctrination in any case.

And as far as the themes of Mass Effect goes, I am not a literary critic, but I would agree that beating the odds is a theme of Mass Effect.  By having Shepard be the first organic to ever activate the crucible, I think it is easy to see that Mass Effect 3's ending is consistent with this theme of beating the odds.  What Shepard does at the end has never been done before therefore by definition it is against the odds.

Doing something that the villain approves of and desires cannot be said to be defying the odds.

First, i'd like to congratulate you on your level of trolling, well done.

Second, synthesis is the melding of synthetics and organic tissue. Everyone would be on the same level of evolution, so no one can not indoctrinate the other. All view points are equal (in regards to evolutionary extinction), and that is a little something called "peace".

Thirdly, if the catalyst knows it's plan no longer works, it talks with it's adversary to negotiate a solution. Another step towards a little something called "peace", which was the reapers plan all along; to stop chaos... to bring peace.

Modifié par KillerJudgement, 30 juin 2012 - 09:16 .

[translationninja]

Uhm I could have killed my rapist with his own knife, but you know, I wouldn't do that, cuz that rapist wanted to use a knife, and if I used his knife on him then the knife would have been used which is what he wanted to begin with and I don't wanna do something that this monster wanted...

does that make any sense at all??????

[The Angry One]

Skyhawk02 wrote...

Maybe you just aren't prepared to face the mature themes present in Mass Effect.

Stopped reading here. Don't bother responding again, because I am now ignoring you.

[The Angry One]

KillerJudgement wrote...

Second, synthesis is the melding of synthetics and organic tissue. Everyone would be on the same level of evolution, so no one can not indoctrinate the other. All view points are equal (in regards to evolutionary extinction), and that is a little something called "peace".

Because everybody being the same has never resulted in conflict.

Thirdly, if the catalyst knows it's plan no longer works, it talks with it's adversary to negotiate a solution. Another step towards a little something called "peace", which was the reapers plan all along; to stop chaos... to bring peace.

On their terms. By their rules. Their definition of "peace" is not mine, and not the galaxy's.