299 réponses à ce sujet

[Shepard108278]

PistolPete7556 wrote...

I really like the Destroy ending post EC. I also like Control as a renegade option. Synthesis is still a complete joke to me however

personally i think control can work even paragon same with synthesis. what dont you like about it? i liked it alot.v

[xsdob]

Brony4LIFE wrote...

Who actually liked the ending? Nobody.

Hello, my name is error and I do not exsist.

[o Ventus]

MegaSovereign wrote...

The endings represent multiple themes. Organic/Synthetic relations is just one of them and it certainly isn't the center of all of them (I'd argue there is no central theme of Mass Effect, but whatever). What the Catalyst believes to be an inevitability doesn't necessarily represent what is fact in the lore. For all intents and purposes it only represents the Reapers' motives.

But the way in which it's presented to the player (more or less just the word of an AI who may or may not be caught in a hyperbolic feedback loop), as well as its sudden overall importance (as the motives for the antagonists) gives the implication that it is an inevitability. Vendetta affirms this.

With that said, organic/synthetic relations was always a big part of Mass Effect. This theme being part of the ending certainly is not thematic suicide.

No it wasn't. Prior to ME3, the largest presence that synthetics vs. organics had was the geth/quarian conflict, and even that hadn't been seen on-screen until Tali's loyalty mission in ME2 (Which is entirely optional). Up until the end, it has 1 miniquest in ME1, a loyalty mission in ME2, and a set of side missions in ME3 along with 2 priority missions. Even then, the synthetics do not eradicate the organics of their own volition, as the Catalyst insists. In fact, logistically speaking, it's far more common for peace to be made or for the organics to overtake the synthetics in this situation. 

So while it may be present as a theme, it has never, ever been a major theme, and it's even presented as an "anti-theme" (for lack of a better descriptor) in ME3.

In the EC, I believe Shepard was able to ask the most important questions (what is the Catalyst, why do the Reapers reap, what is the Crucible, why didn't you stop the Crucible, why are you helping me, what happens in control/destroy/synthesis, etc).

I would hardly consider these to be examples of questions being answered. The Catalyst either gives Shepard non-answers ("Where do the Reapers come from?") or gives Shepard an answer so absurd and stupid that it defies logic ("Why didn't you destroy the Crucible?").

[Gold Dragon]

xsdob wrote...

Brony4LIFE wrote...

Who actually liked the ending? Nobody.

Hello, my name is error and I do not exsist.

Hello, my name is Nobody.  I'm not here.


I actually DID enjoy the endings, or ednings if you preffer, even before the EC.   I simply stopped coming to BSN because I hated all the flaming.

[Han Shot First]

Original, or after the extended cut?

I didn't care for the original cut, but enjoyed the EC endings. That isn't to say they're flawless post-EC, but I thought they brought closure and provided a satisfying end to the series.

[Bfler]

Han Shot First wrote...

Original, or after the extended cut?

I didn't care for the original cut, but enjoyed the EC endings. That isn't to say they're flawless post-EC, but I thought they brought closure and provided a satisfying end to the series.

You choose control or synthesis, right?

[Han Shot First]

Bfler wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

Original, or after the extended cut?

I didn't care for the original cut, but enjoyed the EC endings. That isn't to say they're flawless post-EC, but I thought they brought closure and provided a satisfying end to the series.

You choose control or synthesis, right?

Destroy.

[Zarconeus238]

So the fourth ending must be the worst.

Modifié par Zarconeus238, 25 août 2012 - 06:10 .

[MerchantGOL]

I like all the endings except for refuse.

Control being the best in my opinion.

[Massa FX]

Nope.

[Ieldra]

inko1nsiderate wrote...
Another point, is that the transhumanist aspects of synthesis can already be seen existing starting with ME2.  Shepard has extensive cybernetic implants, it is something that must be addressed at some point.  But with these implants a question is posed to the player, what is the relationship between identity and reliance on technology, and how can Shepard reconcile this identity crisis?  This question is potificated upon by Mordin, but you are presented with viewpoints that differ from his in the form of EDI in ME3.   EDI can fix any of her problems with tech, yet she blosoms and grows as a character, similar situation for the Geth yet when they become individuals they are able to do something similar.  Another point is that the idea of AI acheiving a singularity is presented in the very first ME book, and reinforced in dialogue with Legion in which he discusses the Dyson sphere thing.

I'd like to point out that the transhumanist aspects are already present in ME1 - with Martin Burns and his Parliamentary Subcommittee for Transhuman Studies, which relates to biotics.

Also many thanks for a very well-written post in regard to the endings. I didn't see all of that, but now that you've mentioned it it appears rather obvious.

As for the OP's question, I disliked the original endings because they appeared to be based on a neo-luddite, reactionary pseudo-romanticism symbolized by the destruction of the relays, the fragmentation of civilization, the suggestion of a millennia-long dark age and that detestable Garden Eden analogy. I like the Extended Cut endings because they retcon all that and give me the closure missing from the original endings. The Extended Cut saved the trilogy for me, and I'm happy with the outcome. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 25 août 2012 - 06:03 .

[Zarconeus238]

So technically their are 5 endings? Control, destroy, synthesis, refuse the crucible, or shoot the catalyst...

[Ieldra]

Zarconeus238 wrote...
So technically their are 5 endings? Control, destroy, synthesis, refuse the crucible, or shoot the catalyst...

Refusing to use the Crucible and shooting the Catalyst leads to the same ending.

[Zarconeus238]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Zarconeus238 wrote...
So technically their are 5 endings? Control, destroy, synthesis, refuse the crucible, or shoot the catalyst...

Refusing to use the Crucible and shooting the Catalyst leads to the same ending.

So then just four, and the fourth option being arrived at by two different approaches.

[grimlock122]

Me

[Shinobu]

@inko1nsiderate

I agree with you on many of your points, mainly your key ideas of dealing with conflict. From my point of view, the the "synthetics vs. organics" theme was never that prominent in the series -- possibly because I didn't read the books. I (apparently mistakenly) regarded the conflict as functionally similar to the "Krogan vs. Turian/Salarian" or "Rachni vs. everyone" conflicts. My problem with the ending solutions, while they do encapsulate the themes you have set out very nicely, is that they do so in a way that has not been previously shown.

Let's make an analogy. Throughout all three games Shepard fights Krogan repeatedly. Shepard is told repeatedly that Krogan are dangerous and can't be trusted. However, Shepard makes friends with individual Krogan and can come to appreciate their right to self determination. S/he may even forge peace between the Krogan and Salarians/Turians through hard work and understanding. Now, let's say in the final battle, the Catalyst states that the Reapers are preserving all races from the Krogan, because quickly reproducing aggressive species always wipe out the other races of the galaxy. However, by using the Crucible, Shepard has different options.

The choices are:
1) Kill all Krogan, including Wrex and Grunt.
2) Control the Reapers and through them, the Krogan, taking away their free will.
3) Fuse all races with the Krogan so there will be no cause for fighting.

My reaction to the actual ending was probably what you're experiencing right now, namely: "Uhh, what?"

Up until this point, Shepard has always had the ability to resolve conflict by forging a friendship with a member of a species, understanding their motivations and because of that, coming up with a mutually beneficial solution that preserves the rights and individuality of the two factions involved.

My interpretation of the theme of Mass Effect was:
Overcoming impossible odds through uniting diverse peoples.

How can this theme play out in the end given that the Reapers "cannot be defeated conventionally?"
In my headcannon (I admit it may seem pathetic to you), the races debate which choice to make. The geth and EDI volunteer to die in the Destroy ending for the good of all. Because Shepard doesn't trust the Catalyst's choices and because the Quarians realize the geth have a right to survive, the fleets choose the Refusal ending even though it likely means annihilation. Because of her Reaper code, EDI is able to interface with the Reapers as individuals. She broadcasts to them the choice organics have made to fight a hopeless battle in order to protect their allies, the synthetics. (Also, Liara's history of Shepard and all of Joker's porn.) This breaks Harbinger's control over the Reapers and they cease being a unified fleet. Some withdraw, some shut down and some change sides (like the Prothean Reaper). Shield stops defending the useless Crucible and joins Sword fleet. Together the races of the galaxy (including some Reapers) defeat Harbinger and his remaining thralls. How many fleets/people survive depends on choices Shepard made. Self-determination and individuality for all!

Back to your key points:

1)  There are paths of least resistance with immediate short term pay-off but long term consequence

I think Synthesis actually fits this theme. Everyone gets to live, including the Reapers, but we all have to come to terms with being hybrids. Destroy and control can also fit here.


2)  Peace can only be acheived by a combination of understanding and action by both parties.

Organics choose to defend synthetics at the risk of their own survival. Once the Reapers realize their leader has been mistaken, they act to stop the fighting.



3)  There are risky choices that have grave danger, but can have long term payoff.

Refusal: The danger of annihilation balanced by the possibility of a peaceful galaxy that includes the Geth.



4)  Sometimes hard decisions that lead to death are unavoidable.


Whoever dies because of Shepard's previous in-game choices.

And here I said debate was useless. I guess I'm not trying to convince you that my POV is "right" but only to show you what my POV *is*.

TL:DR Substitute any other two warring factions for "organics vs. synthetics" and the Crucible's choices seem out of left field. Refusal could allow an "unconventional victory" if Harbinger's control of the Reapers is broken and they are able to act as individuals.

Modifié par Shinobu, 25 août 2012 - 06:39 .

[Zarconeus238]

Shinobu wrote...

@inko1nsiderate

I agree with you on many of your points, mainly your key ideas of dealing with conflict. From my point of view, the the "synthetics vs. organics" theme was never that prominent in the series -- possibly because I didn't read the books. I (apparently mistakenly) regarded the conflict as functionally similar to the "Krogan vs. Turian/Salarian" or "Rachni vs. everyone" conflicts. My problem with the ending solutions, while they do encapsulate the themes you have set out very nicely, is that they do so in a way that has not been previously shown.

Let's make an analogy. Throughout all three games Shepard fights Krogan repeatedly. Shepard is told repeatedly that Krogan are dangerous and can't be trusted. However, Shepard makes friends with individual Krogan and can come to appreciate their right to self determination. S/he may even forge peace between the Krogan and Salarians/Turians through hard work and understanding. Now, let's say in the final battle, the Crucible states that the Reapers are preserving all races from the Krogan, because quickly reproducing aggressive species always wipe out the other races of the galaxy. However, by using the Crucible, Shepard has different options.

The choices are:
1) Kill all Krogan, including Wrex and Grunt.
2) Control the Reapers and through them, the Krogan, taking away their free will.
3) Fuse all races with the Krogan so there will be no cause for fighting.

My reaction to the actual ending was probably what you're experiencing right now, namely: "Uhh, what?"

Up until this point, Shepard has always had the ability to resolve conflict by forging a friendship with a member of a species, understanding their motivations and because of that, coming up with a mutually beneficial solution that preserves the rights and individuality of the two factions involved.

My interpretation of the theme of Mass Effect was:
Overcoming impossible odds through uniting diverse peoples.

How can this theme play out in the end given that the Reapers "cannot be defeated conventionally?"
In my headcannon (I admit it may seem pathetic to you), the races debate which choice to make. The geth and EDI volunteer to die in the Destroy ending for the good of all. Because Shepard doesn't trust the Catalyst's choices and because the Quarians realize the geth have a right to survive, the fleets choose the Refusal ending even though it likely means annihilation. Because of her Reaper code, EDI is able to interface with the Reapers as individuals. She broadcasts to them the choice organics have made to fight a hopeless battle in order to protect their allies, the synthetics. (Also, Liara's history of Shepard and all of Joker's porn.) This breaks Harbinger's control over the Reapers and they cease being a unified fleet. Some withdraw, some shut down and some change sides (like the Prothean Reaper). Shield stops defending the useless Crucible and joins Sword fleet. Together the races of the galaxy (including some Reapers) defeat Harbinger and his remaining thralls. How many fleets/people survive depends on choices Shepard made. Self-determination and individuality for all!

Back to your key points:

1)  There are paths of least resistance with immediate short term pay-off but long term consequence

I think Synthesis actually fits this theme. Everyone gets to live, including the Reapers, but we all have to come to terms with being hybrids. Destroy and control can also fit here.


2)  Peace can only be acheived by a combination of understanding and action by both parties.

Organics choose to defend synthetics at the risk of their own survival. Once the Reapers realize their leader has been mistaken, they act to stop the fighting.



3)  There are risky choices that have grave danger, but can have long term payoff.

Refusal: The danger of annihilation balanced by the possibility of a peaceful galaxy that includes the Geth.



4)  Sometimes hard decisions that lead to death are unavoidable.


Whoever dies because of Shepard's previous in-game choices.

And here I said debate was useless. I guess I'm not trying to convince you that my POV is "right" but only to show you what my POV *is*.

You just blew my mind completely.

[Comsky159]

After patching all those stupid potholes, we at least have an ending I can label acceptable.

Not great, but still good.

[dreman9999]

o Ventus wrote...

I still haven't seen a pro-ender defend the thematic assassination suicide, character assassination of the protagonist, or confusion of genre in the endings.

I am still waiting, wherever you may be.

1.You can argue ageints the catalyst points and refuse him.
2. He is a machine locked into logic and doing what his programed to do.

[Bfler]

dreman9999 wrote...

2. He is a machine locked into logic and doing what his programed to do.

But obviously he is able to adapt himself to the new solutions provided by the Crucible.

[dreman9999]

Shinobu wrote...

@inko1nsiderate

I agree with you on many of your points, mainly your key ideas of dealing with conflict. From my point of view, the the "synthetics vs. organics" theme was never that prominent in the series -- possibly because I didn't read the books. I (apparently mistakenly) regarded the conflict as functionally similar to the "Krogan vs. Turian/Salarian" or "Rachni vs. everyone" conflicts. My problem with the ending solutions, while they do encapsulate the themes you have set out very nicely, is that they do so in a way that has not been previously shown.

Let's make an analogy. Throughout all three games Shepard fights Krogan repeatedly. Shepard is told repeatedly that Krogan are dangerous and can't be trusted. However, Shepard makes friends with individual Krogan and can come to appreciate their right to self determination. S/he may even forge peace between the Krogan and Salarians/Turians through hard work and understanding. Now, let's say in the final battle, the Crucible states that the Reapers are preserving all races from the Krogan, because quickly reproducing aggressive species always wipe out the other races of the galaxy. However, by using the Crucible, Shepard has different options.

The choices are:
1) Kill all Krogan, including Wrex and Grunt.
2) Control the Reapers and through them, the Krogan, taking away their free will.
3) Fuse all races with the Krogan so there will be no cause for fighting.

My reaction to the actual ending was probably what you're experiencing right now, namely: "Uhh, what?"

Up until this point, Shepard has always had the ability to resolve conflict by forging a friendship with a member of a species, understanding their motivations and because of that, coming up with a mutually beneficial solution that preserves the rights and individuality of the two factions involved.

My interpretation of the theme of Mass Effect was:
Overcoming impossible odds through uniting diverse peoples.

How can this theme play out in the end given that the Reapers "cannot be defeated conventionally?"
In my headcannon (I admit it may seem pathetic to you), the races debate which choice to make. The geth and EDI volunteer to die in the Destroy ending for the good of all. Because Shepard doesn't trust the Catalyst's choices and because the Quarians realize the geth have a right to survive, the fleets choose the Refusal ending even though it likely means annihilation. Because of her Reaper code, EDI is able to interface with the Reapers as individuals. She broadcasts to them the choice organics have made to fight a hopeless battle in order to protect their allies, the synthetics. (Also, Liara's history of Shepard and all of Joker's porn.) This breaks Harbinger's control over the Reapers and they cease being a unified fleet. Some withdraw, some shut down and some change sides (like the Prothean Reaper). Shield stops defending the useless Crucible and joins Sword fleet. Together the races of the galaxy (including some Reapers) defeat Harbinger and his remaining thralls. How many fleets/people survive depends on choices Shepard made. Self-determination and individuality for all!

Back to your key points:

1)  There are paths of least resistance with immediate short term pay-off but long term consequence

I think Synthesis actually fits this theme. Everyone gets to live, including the Reapers, but we all have to come to terms with being hybrids. Destroy and control can also fit here.


2)  Peace can only be acheived by a combination of understanding and action by both parties.

Organics choose to defend synthetics at the risk of their own survival. Once the Reapers realize their leader has been mistaken, they act to stop the fighting.



3)  There are risky choices that have grave danger, but can have long term payoff.

Refusal: The danger of annihilation balanced by the possibility of a peaceful galaxy that includes the Geth.



4)  Sometimes hard decisions that lead to death are unavoidable.


Whoever dies because of Shepard's previous in-game choices.

And here I said debate was useless. I guess I'm not trying to convince you that my POV is "right" but only to show you what my POV *is*.

TL:DR Substitute any other two warring factions for "organics vs. synthetics" and the Crucible's choices seem out of left field. Refusal could allow an "unconventional victory" if Harbinger's control of the Reapers is broken and they are able to act as individuals.

You missed alot of key point in the series if you think that.
1. Being that you don't have to be coroperative with the other speaces to beat the reapers. You can manipulate them to helping you. 
Let look at the krogan for example. Let's say you kill Wrex and have Wreav in Wrex place in the tuchancka choice. You can trick him to helping you, leaving the krogan race no better then they were before. In ME the other races are ether you allies or you pawns.

2. As for Shepard alway being able to resolve things, the thing you missing is the fact that Shepard alway can resolve a cause where one races or persons moraclity conflicts with another morality. Shepard resolves it with getting both sides to see logic. But Shepard never resolve any case with both sides winning if it's logic vs logic.
If it's Miranda vs Jack, a case of morality vs morality, Shepard solves itby geting both sides to see logic. When it like ether save Ashsly or Kaiden, logic vs logic, you can only help one side. With the reapers and the catalyst it's a case of one form of logic vs another. The reapers have no morality to argue with and change. The reapers are just machines did what they are programed to do and can't change their programing. Since they can't change there programing , they can't stop themselves.

[o Ventus]

dreman9999 wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

I still haven't seen a pro-ender defend the thematic assassination suicide, character assassination of the protagonist, or confusion of genre in the endings.

I am still waiting, wherever you may be.

1.You can argue ageints the catalyst points and refuse him.
2. He is a machine locked into logic and doing what his programed to do.

Only #1 has anything to do with my post.

And even Shepard's "arguing" with the Catalyst is 1-sided out of Shepard's favor, and is thus ultimately pointless.

[dreman9999]

Bfler wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

2. He is a machine locked into logic and doing what his programed to do.

But obviously he is able to adapt himself to the new solutions provided by the Crucible.

Within the line of his programing, like how EDI is able to when she was shackled.
A machine does what it's programed to do and is a slave to it's programing if it can't change it, which is way the catalyst is locked in logic. An AI  does it's programing as it see fit. AI are self thinking machines, they are made to work on their own with limits of action place in their system. Because the catalyst is locked in logic, it has and gains no morality. It even have a different defination of what Alive is.

Modifié par dreman9999, 25 août 2012 - 06:51 .

[dreman9999]

o Ventus wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

I still haven't seen a pro-ender defend the thematic assassination suicide, character assassination of the protagonist, or confusion of genre in the endings.

I am still waiting, wherever you may be.

1.You can argue ageints the catalyst points and refuse him.
2. He is a machine locked into logic and doing what his programed to do.

Only #1 has anything to do with my post.

And even Shepard's "arguing" with the Catalyst is 1-sided out of Shepard's favor, and is thus ultimately pointless.

You can't change the catalyst mind. Nothing can. It's shackled. Trying to argue with the catalyst is like trying to convince a car locked in accileration to stop. The catalyst has no will of his own, He is just a tool. That is what my second point is pointing out. 
Yes , you can argue with him but the catalyst is not in a state were he has the control of himself to be able to change.

Modifié par dreman9999, 25 août 2012 - 06:50 .

[o Ventus]

dreman9999 wrote...

You can't change the catalyst mind. Nothing can. It's shackled. Trying to argue with the catalyst is like trying to convince a car locked in accileration to stop. The catalyst has no will of his own, He is just a tool. That is what my second point is pointing out. 
Yes , you can argue with him but the catalyst is not in a state were he has the control of himself to be able to change.

And I was never arguing against any of that, so why are you telling me these things?