889 réponses à ce sujet

[Redbelle]

Seival wrote...


Story doesn't have to be original to be good. And it's impossible to write something completely original nowadays, because all possible story concepts were already invented. I never said ME story is original, but I said that it's unique among games.

Why is it unique amoung games. Agree that it is unique, but want to hear your take.

Seival wrote...

Personally, I see no "contradictory or full of narrative inconsistencies" in the game. Ending doesn't conflict with the game's lore, and gives complete and logical view of everything what (and why) happened in ME Universe before. Outcomes were too blurry in original ending, but EC fixed that.

I saved the Geth and the Quarian's. Reunited them and proved we could all hold hands and get along.  Took them to battle as war comrades. Then the Catalyst said. "Oh no you can't do that....... the created will always turn against..... blah blah blah". Completely derailing my past efforts to build bridges between synth's and org's.

So why did the Cat do that Seiv? Why is it right and my Shepard is wrong when my Shepard has done what the Cat said could not be done?

Seival wrote...

Game doesn't tell you about mental and cultural inertia directly. But this is something you should think about yourself, while choosing the ending you like. There was no "misinterpret". I've just applied what I've learned from Deathworld to my Mass Effect understanding, and decisions I made in the game.

Cultural inertia? Did the Geth Quarian cultural inertia not get changed through Shepard becoming a moral compass for the Quarian's? Shep's actions and influence has the potential to change the Quarian people's perspective on the Geth.

His actions have the potential to lead the Quarian's to take the Geth into their suits. The one thing that is most culturally significant about the Quarians, the integrity of their suits and they allow geth into them. And the Geth in turn give the Quarian's the leg up they need to return their immune systems to a workable condition and assist in the rebuilding of their planetary infrastructure to support organic life.

Now please tell me. How is this not dealing with thought and cultural inertia through showing how two cultures change? And if your tempted to argue none of this actually happened know your not arguing with me. Your rejecting the testimony of Tali. The doorway who, through conversation, gives you the understanding you need to know the Quarian mindset.

Modifié par Redbelle, 05 novembre 2012 - 02:13 .

[deatharmonic]

How is anyone supposed to stop '****ing' and 'whining' about the endings when threads like these pop up? By all means feel free to debate but the next time an anti-ending thread pops up just remember, Before you post 'stop whining!' there are threads like these from pro-enders who also won't leaving the ending alone. 

NB: Not mentioning any names but I've seen a couple of people who've posted here do exactly as stated above. 

[3DandBeyond]

Argolas wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

BD Manchild wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...



This exactly.

Every single time in the game where there was some conflict between synthetics and organics, it was solved by the participants.  Or, it was prompted, promoted, and maintained by reapers.  To now suggest it's relevant when anyone with 2 brain cells to put together would beg to differ, is laughable.  It means Shepard should be allowed to question this as logic.  In order to stop synthetics from killing organics, it isn't only that the kid sends reapers to do that, but that the reapers and the kid use other synthetics to do that.  The logical response to this would be to tell the kid to stop doing that.

Yeah, it's funny how the kid spews out this self-fulfilling prophecy, isn't it? Nearly every example that is mentioned in the series of conflict between organics and synthetics is revealed to be engineered in some way by the Reapers.

You do know the problem happen before it was made, right?

It occured once, before the cycle. ONCE. And Synthetics did not wipe out organic life, they merely killed their creators, probably because they were opressed. There is no evidence that the Leviathans or any other race were in danger before reaper kid freaked out and killed more life than any of us can imagine.

In this cycle, every organic-synthetic conflict was set up by reapers. The Geth are the only relevant synthetic race in this cycle and they would NEVER have gone to war if the 'peace-seeking' reaper interference. And if there was war, Synthetics would have lost. Without reaper upgrades, they can't stand against the Quarians alone, a united galaxy would pulverize them.

This is the point, exactly.  It was Leviathan's thrall races that created killer synthetics.  Leviathan was enthralling (controlling) them.  The creation of the killer machines was most likely on purpose-to kill Leviathan so they could be free.  Instead of facing the issue at hand, Leviathan decided to create an AI to find peace between the machines and organics, to find balance.  Leviathan caused the situation and then created a flawed AI to solve it.  And what does the kid do?  He creates more killer synthetics.  He does what he sees as inevitable.  His logic is so messed up that he is creating this inevitability.  Just as surely as he sees synthesis as inevitable and has been trying to achieve it-it's because his task is to find balance and all that his logic tells him is that organics and synthetics must always obsess over one another.

In essence, going along with the choices is saying what Leviathan (controlling, enthralling, perhaps killing) and the reapers they became (killing in the guise of ascending) were doing is ok.  The kid says they are his new solutions and he was created basically to keep the thrall races in line-to stop them from creating machines that wanted to kill his creators.  Each of the choices give authenticity to this solution to a problem that is all about the enslavement of other races.  They are choices to help further this enslavement. 

In Leviathan Shepard in effect asks for the help of a cruel race that caused the problem.  Shepard can control the reapers, become one with them, or destroy them, and all of the choices do still help Leviathan.  Controlling them puts Shepard in the role the kid now has and it's very possible the catalyst is still controlled by Leviathan-it's just that Leviathan had their numbers decimated by the machines their thralls created and are in hiding.  Synthesis is said by many to not change the personalities of people, so that means Leviathan still would want to rule.  Nothing says the kid is gone and again he may well still be a part of Leviathan's solution.  Destroy would get rid of killer machines so again Leviathan would be able to enthrall people.  In each instance, there is nothing that says Leviathan would not still enthrall people and loom large.

The problem here is often that people want to have it both ways.  The catalyst is either a logic device beholden to his programming and thus is following that pure logic or he is not and is adaptable, learns, understands.  He cannot be both.  If he is a merely following his programming then he is a purely logic-based device with no nuance.  If then faced with a lack of logic, he could not proceed.  You could not tell him 1 + 1 = 2 and have him deduce that it equals 3.  He is either an AI capable of learning and processing new information, which would change him or he is not.  Neither instance would allow him to figure out his solution is not working and still have him utilize it.  No pure logic device would do that because it's not logical.  And no adaptable AI would do that because it just plain makes no sense.  Neither instance would allow for an illogical solution of the reapers killing life to save it either.  Humans may do that, but a logic device would not. 

The catalyst was created presumably to avoid just that situation, so it was created either to know that that is not desired or with the inability to do such a thing.  You cannot have both an adaptable, nuanced, able to learn, knowledgeable AI and a strictly logical device.  Even Mr. Spock struggled with the contradictions.  A true logic device would burn out its processors.  This is also a tried and true SF tale-where a computer is presented with an illogical logic problem that it is not equipped to solve or handle, so it becomes stuck on the equation-Star Trek, The Twilight Zone, The Outer Limits, books, and so on have all postulated this sort of issue.

[Seival]

A Bethesda Fan wrote...

Seival wrote...

Why did you dislike the endings initially? 

I wanted to win without paying a price. I wanted my Shepard to survive no matter the choice I made. I considered the original Catalyst's solution as insane... My initial thoughts were too naive and too short-sighted. That's why I changed my mind, and performed an attempt to understand the ending. And the attempt was successful. All I needed is to relax and think.

Modifié par Seival, 05 novembre 2012 - 02:15 .

[Redbelle]

Seival wrote...

A Bethesda Fan wrote...

Seival wrote...

Why did you dislike the endings initially? 

I wanted to win without paying a price. I wanted my Shepard to survive no matter the choice I made. I considered the original Catalyst's solution as insane... My initial thoughts were too naive and too short-sighted. That's why I changed my mind, and performed an attempt to understand the ending. And the attempt was successful. All I needed is to relax and think.

Now we're getting somewhere.

However, for the purpose of not confusing my meaning I'm going to make one adjustment to that statement.

Seival wrote...

I wanted to win without paying a price. I wanted my Shepard to survive
no matter the choice I made. I considered the original Catalyst's
solution as insane...

(Please insert reason for going from "The Cat's insane" to "Gosh was I naive").........


(Cause no one knows what prompted the change of outlook. And it's kinda freaking some people out).

Seival wrote...
My initial thoughts were too naive and too
short-sighted. That's why I changed my mind, and performed an attempt to
understand the ending. And the attempt was successful. All I needed is
to relax and think.

[dreamgazer]

Well, I did take away one thing from this thread: I'll probably give the Deathworld books a look.  I read "Make Room! Make Room!" in college shortly after seeing Soylent Green for the first time, but I never really thought to check out much more of Harrison's work beyond that.  
I'm always in the market for a good science-fiction satire / social commentary. 

[Redbelle]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Seival wrote...
Personally, I see no "contradictory or full of narrative inconsistencies" in the game. Ending doesn't conflict with the game's lore, and gives complete and logical view of everything what (and why) happened in ME Universe before. Outcomes were too blurry in original ending, but EC fixed that.

So the fact that you made peace on Rannoch - which was a sublime moment, in fact, one of the most narratively and thematically significant ones in the game - only to be presented with the fact (!!) that this was utterly meaningless in defining the themes of the ending, that didn't bother you?

I find this strange. While I can make of sense of it with interpretation (as JShepppp's thread shows) and it's not a logical inconsistency, the narrative and thematic inconsistency between peace on Rannoch and the premise of the ending is nothing less than mind-boggling.

@Applepie:
Not every Shepard says those words in ME2. I make it a point to make sure none of my Shepards says them. You are making a point on a flawed premise.

You know the Quarians really value their suits? And Shep's actions has the potential to change the Quarian outlook on Geth to allow Geth into their suits? That would not have been possible if the cultural inertia of the Quarian's had not changed. Tali herself provides testimony of this event should peace between Geth and Quarian be made.

The ending that ultimately rejects that orgs and synth's don't have to kill each other, in the face of Geth/Quarian peace therefore has 2 possible orgins.

The writers lost the plot.

The writers didn't want org's and synth's living together unless it was synth or control.

Modifié par Redbelle, 05 novembre 2012 - 02:32 .

[3DandBeyond]

anorling wrote...


The ending is good because it's a classic sci-fi ending and not cliché. OK got it.

Ha ha ha.  This is great.  Yes, it's completely derivative and yet it's original.  It's unique, but it's nothing new because no one can now create anything original.  OP has a rather odd view of the ability of people to create and imagine.  As well, there seem to be these rather crazy interpretations of the game.  I don't trust a person to fully understand ME when they believed (and just loved) the original Normandy crash scene was Joker testing the fixed mass relays (a crash test).  I trust no one who thinks people should be herded up if they don't want to be synthesized, and put on "reservations" on planets where they will be cut off from everyone else.  I trust no one who thinks that post control, Shepard gives birth to the new catalyst and has a relationship with Liara either from within a reaper (artwork Seival did), or from within the citadel.  I also don't trust the person who bases a post synthesis Shepard/Liara relationship on one slide that BW included in synthesis that shows a ghost-like male holding hands with Liara.  I have only gotten to the synthesis end with a femshep and I get that scene as well with a male holding hands with Liara.  I also don't trust a person to correctly interpret anything in this game, if they think there was no other thing they could have done besides the crucible.  It shows a persistent myopic vision.  No SF writer worth his salt would want everyone to only view things as s/he does.  The imagination is as big as the universe itself.  The problem with the endings is the writers reverted to ideas of others, but did not adapt them to this story.  Derivative is fine, if you own it and work it in well.

I happen to believe more that people are capable of imagining anything and putting it down in writing.  In essence, ME had some things like that going for them.  Synthetics were varied and had their own ideas and began to evolve, in a way not usually seen.  But, ME3 stopped all that at the end and reverted them to killer caricatures.

Personally, I envision synthetics that could be as varied as organics are.  In adapting and learning, I see some that might actually not even concern themselves with organics.  Some that want to be like their creators, some that hate their creators, some that evolve, some that don't.  I see some that form their own isolationist societies.  Some may even live in space and not be tied to any one place. But ME3's ending is so narrow-minded, and so anti to what synthetics started to become in ME. 

The crucible is a joke.  It is a plot shortcut.  It's a way of not making true all of the things that are contained within the codex.  It allowed BW to make a crap beginning where no one really did anything, even though a lot of people knew plenty about the reapers.  It also allowed BW to make juvenile fetch quests that are merely un-fun time wasters.  It all stems from one word, impossible.  That is so antithetical to these games and what was so compelling about them in the first place as to be depressing.  ME (the series) was about doing the impossible.  ME3 is not.  It's about surrendering to it.  You can't fight the reapers any way-it's not possible, so you better hope like hell, some big space gun will save the day.   People cannot conceive of anything for themselves, so they better hope someone smarter already has.  In the end, you can't defeat the reapers, so you'd best join them.  ME1 and 2 were all about what you could and can do.  ME3 is all about what you couldn't and can't do.  Fun.

[Seival]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Seival wrote...
Personally, I see no "contradictory or full of narrative inconsistencies" in the game. Ending doesn't conflict with the game's lore, and gives complete and logical view of everything what (and why) happened in ME Universe before. Outcomes were too blurry in original ending, but EC fixed that.

So the fact that you made peace on Rannoch - which was a sublime moment, in fact, one of the most narratively and thematically significant ones in the game - only to be presented with the fact (!!) that this was utterly meaningless in defining the themes of the ending, that didn't bother you?

I find this strange. While I can make of sense of it with interpretation (as JShepppp's thread shows) and it's not a logical inconsistency, the narrative and thematic inconsistency between peace on Rannoch and the premise of the ending is nothing less than mind-boggling.

I don't consider Rannoch Peace as the most thematically significant anymore. Not in the usual way. Such peace was great achievement, but it's only temporary. Catalyst talking to us through the defeated Destroyer was right: "Battle for Rannoch disproves your assumption". You can't solve the problem forever by turning on some mental switch. Peace between Quarians and the Geth will not last long, because Quarians will always have power-hungry and powerfull people like Xen (and maybe because of some external factors too).

[Redbelle]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Seival wrote...
Personally, I see no "contradictory or full of narrative inconsistencies" in the game. Ending doesn't conflict with the game's lore, and gives complete and logical view of everything what (and why) happened in ME Universe before. Outcomes were too blurry in original ending, but EC fixed that.

So the fact that you made peace on Rannoch - which was a sublime moment, in fact, one of the most narratively and thematically significant ones in the game - only to be presented with the fact (!!) that this was utterly meaningless in defining the themes of the ending, that didn't bother you?

I find this strange. While I can make of sense of it with interpretation (as JShepppp's thread shows) and it's not a logical inconsistency, the narrative and thematic inconsistency between peace on Rannoch and the premise of the ending is nothing less than mind-boggling.

@Applepie:
Not every Shepard says those words in ME2. I make it a point to make sure none of my Shepards says them. You are making a point on a flawed premise.

Indeed, a flawed premise. But one that none the less brings into question the game mechanics of Paragon and Renegade actions.

Paragon Shepard doesn't sacrifice his soul

Renegade Shepard does.

Yet every ending requires some sort of sacrifice. Be it mind, body, principal or species.

Refuse seems to be the most Paragon option to me as it is the option where Shep doesn't comprimise his integrity even when the stakes are at there highest.

[Redbelle]

Seival wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Seival wrote...
Personally, I see no "contradictory or full of narrative inconsistencies" in the game. Ending doesn't conflict with the game's lore, and gives complete and logical view of everything what (and why) happened in ME Universe before. Outcomes were too blurry in original ending, but EC fixed that.

So the fact that you made peace on Rannoch - which was a sublime moment, in fact, one of the most narratively and thematically significant ones in the game - only to be presented with the fact (!!) that this was utterly meaningless in defining the themes of the ending, that didn't bother you?

I find this strange. While I can make of sense of it with interpretation (as JShepppp's thread shows) and it's not a logical inconsistency, the narrative and thematic inconsistency between peace on Rannoch and the premise of the ending is nothing less than mind-boggling.

I don't consider Rannoch Peace as the most thematically significant anymore. Not in the usual way. Such peace was great achievement, but it's only temporary. Catalyst talking to us through the defeated Destroyer was right: "Battle for Rannoch disproves your assumption". You can't solve the problem forever by turning on some mental switch. Peace between Quarians and the Geth will not last long, because Quarians will always have power-hungry and powerfull people like Xen (and maybe because of some external factors too).

Definitely looking at things with a glass half empty outlook.

For every Xen there is Zaal'Koris

Time to start living in hope again.

Modifié par Redbelle, 05 novembre 2012 - 02:40 .

[Seival]

A Bethesda Fan wrote...

Seival wrote...

A Bethesda Fan wrote...

Seival wrote...

Why did you dislike the endings initially? 

I wanted to win without paying a price. I wanted my Shepard to survive no matter the choice I made. I considered the original Catalyst's solution as insane... My initial thoughts were too naive and too short-sighted. That's why I changed my mind, and performed an attempt to understand the ending. And the attempt was successful. All I needed is to relax and think.

You can say that again.
No offense but that is a silly reason to dislike the endings, I was fully ready to lose something in the ending.
I was ready to lose earth to stop the Reapers, I would have let my Love interest die after being stranded if it was a choice between saving her and defeating the Reapers.

And here you're upset initially that you didn't get a disney ending with rainbows and  riding unicorns.

That was indeed silly reason to dislike the endings, that's why I changed my mind. And there were no other reasons for me to dislike the endings, because everything in the game looks logical and holistically.

[3DandBeyond]

Ieldra2 wrote...



@Applepie:
Not every Shepard says those words in ME2. I make it a point to make sure none of my Shepards says them. You are making a point on a flawed premise.

The problem with this is that BW set up Shepard to be able to say a great many things.  But not everything fits at the end.  Your Shepard may never say something that mine always does.  Your Shepard may be represented at the end, but mine is not.  This is the issue.  I know I've argued a lot with you, but appreciate your adherence to your interpretation of things.  It's just that my interpretations are just as valid.  And while you figure yours are basically represented, mine are not.  That's the problem.

As it is, if you think something shown is what your Shepard could live with, you have a basis upon which to support it.  But, I can quote many things that my Shepard says and they mean my Shepard could not live with those things.  My Shepard would see those things as futile, wrong, immoral, or what have you.  You base your decisions on how you played and you are given feedback that says you were right.  People are fond of saying there is no canon in the game, but clearly this means there is.

For instance, I cannot choose control and synthesis for reasons I've enumerated various times, but this same character also cannot choose destroy based on the geth and EDI.  It's what my character said and did in the games that forms this conclusion.  However, someone whose Shepard did not give a hoot about the geth and EDI quite possibly would have no problem with it.  EDI in my game told Shepard she helped her become alive.  I can't just say "forget all that" and kill her.  But this Shepard also has real problems with any choice because this Shepard does not see the issue to be killer synthetics, other than the reapers.

Not all types of Shepards that BW allowed players to create and play are represented at the end.  I could make the case that most of them aren't, but that's another discussion altogether.

[drayfish]

Seival wrote...

drayfish wrote...

The other Harry Harrison fan that you cited, jeweledleah, explicitly did not state that your argument proved Destroy...  Is that meant to be a joke?  Did you not actually read what was written (which I suspect may be a pattern of yours, frankly), or are you being intentionally deceitful?

Here - because it was an exceptional post in itself, I will take the liberty of quoting it again.  This time please actually read what is being said because jeweledleah makes some very telling points:

....

Your reading was so off-base that it saddened him/her.  Destroy was not supported (unless, for you, refraining from specifically condemning something by name is a glowing recommendation.  And - again - you were implored to re-examine the primary text because you have fundamentally misinterpreted what the whole thing was about.

How you have turned this into an endorsement of your reading is borderline delusional.

Indeed, the fact that you are persisting with this entire argument at this point is extraordinary!

You demanded in your OP that people should examine the likenesses between the two texts.  They have.  There are none.

You have been told repeatedly that you are wrong; that the text at no point posits what you think it does; that the character you quoted ultimately rejects such a premise; that Harry Harrison himself was a satirist, that he believed the complete opposite of what you suggest, and that his entire canon of work disproves you; and that thematically, ideologically, and logistically these texts have nothing in common.

...And yet you still want people to just blindly accept some imaginary evidence, thinking that just by typing a writer's name - completely out of all context - you have unearthed some profound truth from this onslaught of fatuous misinformation? 

This is not analysis, Seival.  This is not reason or critique.  It is not even rational.

You may as well say that The Road and The Wizard of Oz are the same because at one point the characters in both books decide to go for a walk...

I read his post before and I don't need to re-read it again. The fan has different conclusions about the book, and doesn't like ME3 ending. When someone tells that two of three possible ways to stop the Reapers were disproved by some quotes, he automatically admits that those quotes are approving the only remaining way to stop the Reapers, so what he said was a direct support of Destroy.

The OP is not out of context. ME3 ending is not out of context. But you see them both out of context. You, some other people, but not everyone around.

This is abject nonsense, Seival.

Despite jeweledleah expressly saying your whole argument is wrong, and that no equivalencies can be drawn between the two texts, you have then taken it upon yourself to imagine that he/she agreed with you? This is either dishonesty or willing ignorance on an alarming scale. (And, farcically, this kind of delusional misreading is precisely what you have done with Harry Harrison's entire canon...)

Either way it's disheartening, because the fact that you would not even read the post again (which you clearly did not do in the first place) reveals that you actually have no interest in rational analysis. This is merely rote regurgitation. You have no interest in actually exploring anything, and clearly just want to repeating illogical, unsubstantiated fantasy.

(Indeed, how is this thread still titled 'Harry Harrison would love ME3 ending', when that premise has been revealled several times over to be untrue?)

You genuinely make me sad, Seival; you make it impossible to take you seriously, or to have a civil discussion.

[dreamgazer]

Redbelle wrote...

The writers lost the plot.

The writers didn't want org's and synth's living together unless it was synth or control.

I disagree: I think the writers are fine with organics and synthetics living together in a reconstructed era, but with a blank slate and the lessons of the past built into their viewpoint.  The Catalyst's doubt over repeated mistakes =/= BioWare's doubt over repeated mistakes. 

Refuse seems to be the most Paragon option to me as it is the option where Shep doesn't comprimise his integrity even when the stakes are at there highest.

And I disagree with that, too, since it's an act of moral selfishness that (presumably) comdemns everyone to death, but all the endings are open to personal viewpoints that work to both sides. Noble, sure; Justified, sure; "Paragon"? Eh.

[Seival]

Redbelle wrote...

Seival wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Seival wrote...
Personally, I see no "contradictory or full of narrative inconsistencies" in the game. Ending doesn't conflict with the game's lore, and gives complete and logical view of everything what (and why) happened in ME Universe before. Outcomes were too blurry in original ending, but EC fixed that.

So the fact that you made peace on Rannoch - which was a sublime moment, in fact, one of the most narratively and thematically significant ones in the game - only to be presented with the fact (!!) that this was utterly meaningless in defining the themes of the ending, that didn't bother you?

I find this strange. While I can make of sense of it with interpretation (as JShepppp's thread shows) and it's not a logical inconsistency, the narrative and thematic inconsistency between peace on Rannoch and the premise of the ending is nothing less than mind-boggling.

I don't consider Rannoch Peace as the most thematically significant anymore. Not in the usual way. Such peace was great achievement, but it's only temporary. Catalyst talking to us through the defeated Destroyer was right: "Battle for Rannoch disproves your assumption". You can't solve the problem forever by turning on some mental switch. Peace between Quarians and the Geth will not last long, because Quarians will always have power-hungry and powerfull people like Xen (and maybe because of some external factors too).

Definitely looking at things with a glass half empty outlook.

For every Xen there is Zaal'Koris

Time to start living in hope again.

Hope is a delusion which vanishes once you reached the destination. You can't solve the problem only by hoping it will be resolved. To solve a problem you create/sustain a temporary solution hoping it would last long enough, or create a permanent solution which will last forever, without any hopes.

[Peranor]

drayfish wrote...

Seival wrote...

drayfish wrote...

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and is a patent misreading of the text.  (And again: you are the one who said that Deathworld and Mass Effect should be compared.)

...So to summarise, this entire thread has just been perpetrated on your own head canon?  Is this just about synthesis camps again?

Just to be clear: the fiction that you sighted argues the complete opposite of what you says it does; the author you referenced was being satirical, and in all of his fiction utterly contradicts the notion that people should be forced by authority to change against their will; and you have totally rewritten the plot in your mind to fit your very specific vision of the Mass Effect narrative.

And yet somehow it is other people who need to stop being so ignorant and think about the science fiction they read before spouting off a load of hypocritical, ill-informed nonsense?

Got it.  Although do be sure to take your own advice.

For you ME3 ending also makes no sense, while for me (and not only for me) it makes perfect sense. Like I said, Deathworld and Mass Effect should be compared, because they raise similar philosophical questions. Mass Effect is not a copy of Deathworld, but BioWare writers were clearly inspired by books like Deathworld. And this is what makes the entire Mass Effect Trilogy (and especially its ending) great.

The OP is not about my "head canon". You've already seen another Harry Harrison fan here, who thinks that OP quotes support Destroy rather than Control or Synthesis. I disagree of course, but still we have two different opinions on the book's meaning. And BSN has nice examples of the same moral argument about Mass Effect Trilogy (and especially about its ending). Which only proves that the entire ME Story is brilliant, like any good sci-fi book.

The other Harry Harrison fan that you cited, jeweledleah, explicitly did not state that your argument proved Destroy...  Is that meant to be a joke?  Did you not actually read what was written (which I suspect may be a pattern of yours, frankly), or are you being intentionally deceitful?

Here - because it was an exceptional post in itself, I will take the liberty of quoting it again.  This time please actually read what is being said because jeweledleah makes some very telling points:

jeweledleah wrote...

god I didn't think I would ever post on these forums again, but through series of events, I saw this thread (someone on my friendslist replied to it) and as Harry Harrison is one of my absolute favorite sci-fi writers EVER, of course I had to see this one.

Deathworld is also one of my favorite books of his to the point where in pretty much every game I play that allows you to name the characters - I have one named Meta (or Metta - depending on availability. random amusing fact - in SWTOR its the name of my Trooper, who just happens to be voice by Jennifer Hale)

now that this is out of the way, IMO, OP? you are completely misunderstanding the point of these books. in fact, passages you quoted? support those who do not like synthesis or control as solution. you can almost directly use the first quote to disprove the idylia of synthesis as presented to us by bioware, and yet we are supposed to accept that that's the way things would be.

moreover. if you had read Deathworld, then I'm assuming, you've read The Ethical engineer? a lot of defenders of Synthesis remind me of Micah. strongly. their reasoning seems to be very similar.

the fact that you compared Harry Harrison's writing to the writing in Mass Effect, puting them on equal standing, especialy ME3? saddens me. sure there's surface resemblance. the entire alien planet rising up to destroy the junkers, constantly improving against them, doign their best to destroy them and the twist is - we find out that the flora and fauna by themselves are not these evil beings, that junkers themselves are to blame.

but this is where resemblance ends. at that twist of "bad guys are actualy good guys and understanding them and accepting them - ends the sycle of ever escalating fighting"

the Narrative in Deathworld is cohesive. it adds up. it makes sence. its coherent. the characters never go out of character. they are never forced into doing something that doesn't fit the rest of their respresentation for the sake of railroading the plot. Harrison is a freaking MASTER of twist/reveal endings. I cannot say the same about twist in ME3. ME1 and nature of Sovereign? comes close. ME2 and nature of collectors? also comes close. ME3 and nature of reapers and the catalyst? eh.... YMMV origin of Asari however, does come close to being a great twist/revelation.

either way. the whole argument "you dislike it becasue you are too lazy/stupid/insert insult here" to understand it is one of the reasons why I stopped posting here or generaly discussing ME3.

I just coudln't resist, because a writer whose writing I grew up on, learned english with (oh yeah - reading him and Bradbury was how I studied the language) is being used in this absolutely awful context.

incidentaly - before I leave again? I would strongly suggest that people who might wonder into this thread? read some Harry Harrison. good, smart sci-fi that is also well written.

Your reading was so off-base that it saddened him/her.  Destroy was not supported (unless, for you, refraining from specifically condemning something by name is a glowing recommendation.  And - again - you were implored to re-examine the primary text because you have fundamentally misinterpreted what the whole thing was about.

How you have turned this into an endorsement of your reading is borderline delusional.

Indeed, the fact that you are persisting with this entire argument at this point is extraordinary!

You demanded in your OP that people should examine the likenesses between the two texts.  They have.  There are none.

You have been told repeatedly that you are wrong; that the text at no point posits what you think it does; that the character you quoted ultimately rejects such a premise; that Harry Harrison himself was a satirist, that he believed the complete opposite of what you suggest, and that his entire canon of work disproves you; and that thematically, ideologically, and logistically these texts have nothing in common.

...And yet you still want people to just blindly accept some imaginary evidence, thinking that just by typing a writer's name - completely out of all context - you have unearthed some profound truth from this onslaught of fatuous misinformation? 

This is not analysis, Seival.  This is not reason or critique.  It is not even rational.

You may as well say that The Road and The Wizard of Oz are the same because at one point the characters in both books decide to go for a walk...

+100

But seriously though drayfish. Stop arguing with Seival if you want to keep your sanity
Seival is so lost in his own delusional musings you'll never be able to reach out to him. No matter how compelling arguments you present  
It doesn't matter what you say. He'll just stick his fingers his ears and go La La La.

[DoomsdayDevice]

Seival wrote...

And the attempt was successful.

You mean the indoctrination attempt was successful.

[3DandBeyond]

Redbelle wrote...

Seival wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...


So the fact that you made peace on Rannoch - which was a sublime moment, in fact, one of the most narratively and thematically significant ones in the game - only to be presented with the fact (!!) that this was utterly meaningless in defining the themes of the ending, that didn't bother you?

I find this strange. While I can make of sense of it with interpretation (as JShepppp's thread shows) and it's not a logical inconsistency, the narrative and thematic inconsistency between peace on Rannoch and the premise of the ending is nothing less than mind-boggling.

I don't consider Rannoch Peace as the most thematically significant anymore. Not in the usual way. Such peace was great achievement, but it's only temporary. Catalyst talking to us through the defeated Destroyer was right: "Battle for Rannoch disproves your assumption". You can't solve the problem forever by turning on some mental switch. Peace between Quarians and the Geth will not last long, because Quarians will always have power-hungry and powerfull people like Xen (and maybe because of some external factors too).

Definitely looking at things with a glass half empty outlook.

For every Xen there is Zaal'Koris

Time to start living in hope again.

So apparently people are incapable of solving problems and a slash and burn policy is always the best.  Organics have no redeeming value, so either control them or remove them from the equation completely.  Except all through these games, organics have been solving the problem.  And one solution was to stop fighting against synthetics and let them self-determine.  One solution was to stop blaming the Krogan for what was done to them and to let them self-determine.  It's about allowing water to seek its own level and not feel like you must control the whole situation.  Sometimes, it is best to let happen what will happen.  Sometimes, it's about knowing when to control it all.  Wisdom lies in the balance.  But wisdom is not in making one of these choices, which are basically affirmations of the inability of people to act maturely and handle a problem, if indeed this is the problem.

The fact that people did solve such problems as they arose indicate an ability that is unique and that is what the geth and EDI have sought, the nuance that exists within the organic mind to approach problems from various directions, not linearly.  The AI failed always because he could not view the problem from a different perspective and he kept trying to find a new perspective.  The choices still do that because the only real solution is to let people handle the problem for themselves.  The geth/quarian thing is the most resounding example of the galaxy approaching the brink and being able to walk back from it.  And they did not need some created AI to do it-the geth had remorse.  The quarians did or could also learn.  It is the best example and it's ignored.  Everything is temporary, but so what?  Every solution the kid has come up with is temporary and we still have no idea who created these choices or the crucible.  We have no way of knowing that these choices are not temporary as well, but no matter.  The endings say forget all that, organics can't evolve and become mature about all this, synthetics will always kill.  Slash and burn.

[Seival]

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

Seival wrote...

And the attempt was successful.

You mean the indoctrination attempt was successful.

I mean the understanding attempt was successful. Catalyst had no intentions to indoctrinate Shepard in the end - this is a part of successful understanding.

[dreamgazer]

Seival wrote...

Hope is a delusion which vanishes once you reached the destination. You can't solve the problem only by hoping it will be resolved. To solve a problem you create/sustain a temporary solution hoping it would last long enough, or create a permanent solution which will last forever, without any hopes.

None of the options are a "permanent solution" to all problems. 

[Redbelle]

Seival wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

Seival wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Seival wrote...
Personally, I see no "contradictory or full of narrative inconsistencies" in the game. Ending doesn't conflict with the game's lore, and gives complete and logical view of everything what (and why) happened in ME Universe before. Outcomes were too blurry in original ending, but EC fixed that.

So the fact that you made peace on Rannoch - which was a sublime moment, in fact, one of the most narratively and thematically significant ones in the game - only to be presented with the fact (!!) that this was utterly meaningless in defining the themes of the ending, that didn't bother you?

I find this strange. While I can make of sense of it with interpretation (as JShepppp's thread shows) and it's not a logical inconsistency, the narrative and thematic inconsistency between peace on Rannoch and the premise of the ending is nothing less than mind-boggling.

I don't consider Rannoch Peace as the most thematically significant anymore. Not in the usual way. Such peace was great achievement, but it's only temporary. Catalyst talking to us through the defeated Destroyer was right: "Battle for Rannoch disproves your assumption". You can't solve the problem forever by turning on some mental switch. Peace between Quarians and the Geth will not last long, because Quarians will always have power-hungry and powerfull people like Xen (and maybe because of some external factors too).

Definitely looking at things with a glass half empty outlook.

For every Xen there is Zaal'Koris

Time to start living in hope again.

Hope is a delusion which vanishes once you reached the destination. You can't solve the problem only by hoping it will be resolved. To solve a problem you create/sustain a temporary solution hoping it would last long enough, or create a permanent solution which will last forever, without any hopes.

So like the man say's, your no better than a machine?

Can't argue with a machine.