463 réponses à ce sujet

[Forbry]

adneate wrote...

Forbry wrote...
Why don't you just feel really surprised, feel enlightened, feel Bioware has done a rather great, crediting way in fooling you? 

There are two types of twist endings, one you couldn't see coming but are actually layerd into the story and reveal themselves upon subsequent review and pulling a twist out of your ass that isn't foreshadowed or alluded to in any capacity.

The Reapers being mindless automatons lead by a rogue AI program that is killing everyone to save them is the ass pull kind of twist. The ass pull being the bane of modern storytelling as it is criminally used by every hack writer and director in every medium. It's one thing to be tricked it's another to be out right lied to to.

Well, for me, it was like the first type of ending you describe. For you it clearly wasn't. That's o.k. I will stop trying to convince people otherwise

[Tirranek]

Dougy Fresh wrote...

The catalyst started the fire however.... Boom roasted.

That still doesn't make the fire itself at war with you.

[Rasofe]

Listen, just because the Reapers are millenia old doesn't mean their logic is flawless.
As a matter of fact, millenia old things tend to lack logic entirely.

The Catalyst is talking out of its rear end most of the time, even in the EC, but at least it makes several wrong assumptions about things that let you decide which one is the least wrong option.

I think the "They're not evil, they're just doing their jobs" line proves just how little the Reaper understands organic nature, thus tuning the player with logical sense a bit further from the utopian Synthesis ending to one of the other three.

[G02Guy4Tace]

Mass Effect 1: "destroy reapers"
Mass Effect 2: "destroy reapers!"
Mass Effect 3: "DESTROY REAPERS!!!!" God-child: "we're doing it all to help you."

[Welsh Inferno]

The analogy makes sense. But hey, don't let that stop y'all.

[Memnon]

Dranks wrote...

If you set fire to my house, you're at war with me, not the fire. The fire was just a tool. I do see what you're saying though.

I made this exact point (using the same analogy even) in a different "fire/war" thread. I don't curse the fire, I fight the person who set it. We're at war with the Catalyst

[gjp11]

this may have been said but i didn't read the first 5 pages of the thread but if i burn your house down, you and I may be at war but the fire isn't. It is a tool but it has no interest in war, just burning. Same as the reapers just harvesting. They don't comprehend this as a war rather as completing what they are supposed to do. A bullet kills but it has no intention for war however it is created for the purpose of killing. This is where the phrase "guns dont kill people, people kill people comes in". Starbrat knew it was a war but his reaper ships did not understand it that way.

[sth128]

Naugi wrote...

But fire does do what it was created to do. So do bombs.

You need to be clear, are you talking about the tool (fire, bomb) or the person who started the fire / dropped the bomb. I think you are confusing the two as being the same.

I am implying that the Catalyst is being purposefully ignorant and thinking itself the fire, when he is in fact, the arsonist. I did this by sarcastically claiming that setting fires to someone's house relieves me of guilt because the fire did the burning, not me.

Of course bombs do what they do, but Reapers aren't just bombs or fires. They are bombs and fires that choose to destroy. They aren't natural, and they aren't fires.

(if they were then they would not be able to burn, since there can no fire in vacuum)

[Kris69]

The point is: When someone sets fire to your house, you're at war with him, not with the fire. You try to put the fire out and to win the war with the one who set it to your house. So Shepard tries to put the fires out (destroying the reapers he encounters) and he also tries to win the war with the one who started the fires (the one who controls the reapers - the Catalyst, a.k.a Starbrat. He's responsible, the Reapers are just the tools. The Catalyst is Shepard's true enemy). AND HOW DOES ONE WIN WARS? By destroying your enemy, so destroy is the only option that makes sense.

Modifié par Kris69, 02 juillet 2012 - 05:21 .

[adneate]

Forbry wrote...
No, that's where you're wrong. It has already been explained many, many times, but you just do not want to see it that way...

Ah so it's going exactly as it always does "It's really deep but I can't explain it because people that don't get it never will it's just that deep."

The thesis of Mass Effect's ending is two guys sitting in a room saying "Well we have to end it to meet deadline and we have to have a choice at the end since this is a BioWare RPG and they have a choice at the end. Let's rip off Deus Ex and have a starchild, because starchild is always representative of something."

It's pointless imagery spinkled over quasi-philosophical bull****. Which offends me as someone who actually took philosophy in University, spouting off several contradictory statements with vague assertions does not make something logical, thought provoking or introspective. It makes it a waste of my time.

[agu123]

Forbry wrote...

adneate wrote...

Forbry wrote...
Bahhh, you're just being sooooooooooooo negative... Read the appropiate posts at this forum with an open-mind and the thesis will reveal itself to you eventually

I have and I've shot every single one of them down there is no thesis and everyone who says there is either won't explain it (like now) or wrote a fan fic and is trying to pass it off as the truth.

No, that's where you're wrong. It has already been explained many, many times, but you just do not want to see it that way...

Explain.

[The Angry One]

Ah yes, the "I understand BioWare's deep ending and you don't" argument never gets old.

Oh sorry, by "never gets old" I meant "is older than a billion year old, old thing."

[Naugi]

sth128 wrote...

Of course bombs do what they do, but Reapers aren't just bombs or fires. They are bombs and fires that choose to destroy. They aren't natural, and they aren't fires.

Its irrelevant what Reapers are, if they do what they are told / programmed / designed to do without having decided to do it themselves then they are just performing a base single minded function (destroy) in the same way fire and bombs do. They dont choose to destroy. They are built to destroy and it is their sole purpose.

The Catalyst is just saying that you cant blame the Reapers for performing their primary function anymore than you can blame a bomb for exploding or fire for burning. Its perfectly logical.

Still think youre confusing the one who pulls the trigger with the bullet.

Modifié par Naugi, 02 juillet 2012 - 05:26 .

[sth128]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

Actually, it's more like this:
[epic Mt. Rushmore creature]

Not only does the "preserved" culture move as one, but it will kick your butt ten ways to Tuesday.

I... You... The...

Whoever created that picture deserves 10 internets.

The Angry One wrote...

There's a reason nobody takes M. Night Shyamalan seriously anymore, and this is why.
Twists for twists' sake are boring and futile. BioWare have done nothing clever, they've just compromised their own work.

Boom! The Thorians did it! Epic twist ending!

(That's a reference to "The Happening" aka. most boring 2 hours you will have spent watching Marky Mark talking to trees)

[Rasofe]

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...

Reminds me one of the Asimov story where they hypothetised:

If a modified robot were to drop a heavy weight upon a human being, he would not be breaking the First Law, if he did so with the knowledge that his strength and reaction speed would be sufficient to snatch the weight away before it struck the man. However once the weight left his fingers, he would be no longer the active medium. Only the blind force of gravity would be that. The robot could then change his mind and merely by inaction, allow the weight to strike.

Yes, that's the one where they modified the First Law for some robots so that they could technically allow deaths by inaction. But unlike the Catalyst, Asimovs robots were pure mathematical beings - similar to the Mass Effect VI's. The Catalyst, on the other hand, exists in a fundamentalist state of fanaticism towards its goal, and thereby attempts to justify it with demagogy. It just proves that all along, the object that drove and controlled the Reapers was never fit to lead them. Hence Shepard should either Destroy or seize power, or for those utopianists out there, create a situation where they are not necessary, thus defaulting the Catalyst to obsoletion.

[Blacklash93]

sth128 wrote...
I always feel refreshingly exhilarated when I fall victim to a deception.
Also,

Basic premise of Reapers / Synthesis

This is the thing with transhumanism. People are either open to it or vehemently against it. It goes without saying that it's an alien unknown and thus automatically frightening and repulsive to many so it's understandable. Such a change in nature is outside of our comfort zone.

But the Catalyst wasn't deceptive when it said it believed Synthesis would bring peace, because that's pretty much what it did as far as was shown.

Modifié par Blacklash93, 02 juillet 2012 - 05:30 .

[Forbry]

d-boy15 wrote...

Forbry wrote...

d-boy15 wrote...

come on, it's just writer try to push you in to their favor choice "synthesis".

they tell us about how evil reaper is throughout trilogy and then in last 20 minutes they just
tell us that "well, reaper not really a bad guy, just want to save you"

what the hell? you got at least 60 hours to tell us about that bot no, instead you shove it to
our face in the reward moment. It's like someone just spark an idea about synthesis in the
last minutes and want it to be in game too much even it's destroy all thing that make reaper
a great antagonist.

Let's say I agree with what you're saying in all its facets. What's wrong with finding out everything turns out to be completely different then you thought its was. Why are you so angry and/or frustrated about that? Why don't you just feel really surprised, feel enlightened, feel Bioware has done a rather great, crediting way in fooling you? 

"What's wrong with finding out everything turns out to be completely different then you thought its was?"

there nothing wrong with it but for ME3 ending, it's something different.

it's like I'm a soldier, get an order to kill the terrorist before they can blow something. after all I've
been through, lost my friend, fail to stop him from kill people and when the moment where I'm gonna
put the bullet to his head, he just say "I do it all, to save everyone". do I suppose to let him live then?
or help him instead? because that what's bioware expect me to do.

back to what your ask how I feel, I feel that bioware is not the great story teller anymore.

I really think I can empathize with your feelings, but isn't it just a matter of taste then? I could have liked the way you would have ended it tóo, but for me the way Bioware ended it was even better. More surprising and more philosophical. Something I like, it sets the game apart from regular wargames. And yes the ending, although it really did surprise me too, for me, fits with the rest of the game.

Over and out

[NM_Che56]

OP,

You have completely missed the point.

Fire has no motive. Fire has no desire. Bombs do not detonate themselves. They are all either instruments or the direct effect of something else. They are not the arsonists. They are not the Nat-sees (wow, this board filters that word out! ).

Someone dies from a gunshot, you don't put the gun in jail.

They are saying that the Reapers are not acting based on their motives. They are merely doing what they are designed to do.

Modifié par Master Che, 02 juillet 2012 - 05:30 .

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

Rasofe wrote...

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...

Reminds me one of the Asimov story where they hypothetised:

If a modified robot were to drop a heavy weight upon a human being, he would not be breaking the First Law, if he did so with the knowledge that his strength and reaction speed would be sufficient to snatch the weight away before it struck the man. However once the weight left his fingers, he would be no longer the active medium. Only the blind force of gravity would be that. The robot could then change his mind and merely by inaction, allow the weight to strike.

Yes, that's the one where they modified the First Law for some robots so that they could technically allow deaths by inaction. But unlike the Catalyst, Asimovs robots were pure mathematical beings - similar to the Mass Effect VI's. The Catalyst, on the other hand, exists in a fundamentalist state of fanaticism towards its goal, and thereby attempts to justify it with demagogy.

I don't know. I've brought Asimov because to me it looked a lot similar to other Asimov's works when some robots broke the Laws (or "skirted" them somehow), then tried to justify their violation of the Laws, in process acting pretty much like delusional person who don't want to admit he's delusional.

[Rasofe]

Naugi wrote...

sth128 wrote...

Of course bombs do what they do, but Reapers aren't just bombs or fires. They are bombs and fires that choose to destroy. They aren't natural, and they aren't fires.

Its irrelevant what Reapers are, if they do what they are told / programmed / designed to do without having decided to do it themselves then they are just performing a base single minded function (destroy) in the same way fire and bombs do. They dont choose to destroy. They are built to destroy and it is their sole purpose.

The Catalyst is just saying that you cant blame the Reapers for performing their primary function anymore than you can blame a bomb for exploding or fire for burning. Its perfectly logical.

Still think youre confusing the one who pulls the trigger with the bullet.

That's taking it way out of context. In the situation at hand, the Catalyst claims that it did all of this to preserve peace between organics and machines. Shepard can now immediately ask the question that we all wanted to ask originally - "WHAT? You don't call this a war!?" and the reply from the Catalyst is that the extinction is simply a fire that's burning and is at no conflict. Essentially, what I believe it means is that the Reaper Invasion is not so much of a War as a complete Extinction (our particular cycle being excempt considering the completely anamolous amount of casualties the Reapers suffered). It's very fallacious, but there it is.

[ghost9191]

you still put out fires before they can do dmg, or try

[Mojenator12345]

Zardoc wrote...

No. An ancient race created a being to help them achieve peace with synthetics. That being went mad (or simply betrayed it's creators) and then made the first fire, the Reapers. We are at war with the Catalyst, and the Reapers are his fire.

This.  The only way to make any sense out of the ending is to understand that the Catalyst has gone completely mad.

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

Master Che wrote...

You have completely missed the point.

Fire has no motive. Fire has no desire. Bombs do not detonate themselves. They are all either instruments or the direct effect of something else. They are not the arsonists. They are not the Nat-sees (wow, this board filters that word out! ).

Someone dies from a gunshot, you don't put the gun in jail.

They are saying that the Reapers are not acting based on their motives. They are merely doing what they are designed to do.

Technically, because humans are omnivores, they are "designed to kill". Does this mean we have to?

The problem is that pretty much all ME established Reapers as being *sentient beings*, and last 5 mins just suddenly tries to contradict it all.

Also, I think that making videogame where epic enemy turned out to be just advanced lawnmower on the loose is pretty cheap.

Modifié par Ingvarr Stormbird, 02 juillet 2012 - 05:33 .

[sth128]

Naugi wrote...

Its irrelevant what Reapers are,

Wrong. It is entirely relevant. In fact that is the point. Reapers claim themselves to be "each a nation - independent, free of all weakness".

Just like a soldier cannot use the excuse "I was only following orders" to commit crimes against humanity, neither can Reapers (or Catalyst) to claim "we were only following our directives" and be free of guilty intent.

The Catalyst is just saying that you cant blame the Reapers for performing their primary function anymore than you can blame a bomb for exploding or fire for burning. Its perfectly logical.

And that is the stupidest argument of all time. You cannot circumvent guilt by saying you have no intent. Even when you accidentally run over someone, that is still manslaughter and punishable by law.

Even if the Reapers are mindless machines (which they aren't) and can't choose to NOT destroy (but they can, that's why humans are around), their action will still have meaning.

Catalyst is illogical. He controls the Reapers. He controls where they set fire. He cannot claim himself the fire. He has intent and he has killed.

You are wrong.

[Rasofe]

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...

Master Che wrote...

You have completely missed the point.

Fire has no motive. Fire has no desire. Bombs do not detonate themselves. They are all either instruments or the direct effect of something else. They are not the arsonists. They are not the Nat-sees (wow, this board filters that word out! ).

Someone dies from a gunshot, you don't put the gun in jail.

They are saying that the Reapers are not acting based on their motives. They are merely doing what they are designed to do.

Technically, because humans are omnivores, they are "designed to kill". Does this mean we have to?

The problem is that pretty much all ME established Reapers as being *sentient beings*, and last 5 mins just suddenly tries to contradict it all.

Also, I think that making videogame where epic enemy turned out to be just advanced lawnmower on the loose is pretty cheap.

This.
 
I feel like it's the chief and right now only problem with the Control Ending. After two games of building them up as "Sentient Constructs" as EDI called them, they suddenly obey to a single AI entity with the brains of a child. Literally.