889 réponses à ce sujet

[StarcloudSWG]

Synthesis comes down to two things: Either it allows conflict, which means conflict can be between synthetics and organics, or organics and organics, or synthetics and synthetics, in which case the Catalyst FAILS and Synthesis is NOT a solution; or it does NOT allow conflict, in which case everyone is *mind-controlled* into being peaceful, at least until life arises that is outside the mind-control network.

In any case, Seival, what you're missing in your 'oh my god the ending had so much thought put into it it's amazing' enthusiasm is this; the ending talks about secondary and tertiary themes as being key to the resolution of the game, and ignores the demonstrated primary themes of strength through cooperation, growth through diversity, self-determination of cultures being superior to early uplift, the will of sapient life to persist against overwhelming threats, and Synthesis being a stagnant dead end both technologically and culturally.

Deus Ex: Human Revolution *worked* because *the entire game* was about the themes of the ending. It led you to consider the different points of view, the different possibilities *well before* you had to make the choice.

It doesn't matter how much thought Mac and Casey put into the endings. They *failed* to tie the Catalyst and its dialog into the rest of the games *narrative*. Mass Effect was never about Synthetics vs. Organics; that was a subtheme.

Mass Effect was about *saving galactic civilization from extinction by the Reapers.*

Modifié par StarcloudSWG, 06 novembre 2012 - 10:08 .

[Archonsg]

@drayfish
Must be rather embarrassing for him to actually run across someone actually familiar with Mr Harrison's work. Or her, I forgot which it is. Any ways, caught in falsehood, then without the good grace to admit it, and tries to use the "you don't understand..." card.

Thought only politicians are that self delusional.

[Redbelle]

Davik Kang wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...
Davik Kang, he's dead, always.

OHHHHHHHHHHHHH.

Whoops I really should've got that.

However, it's not true!!!  I live!!!

Yay!




Whose Davik Kang?

[Seival]

Redbelle wrote...

Seival wrote...

Sauruz wrote...

Seival wrote...

Star Wars title is just silly adventure without any good story. Just action, action, more action, and overhyped popularity. Completely empty and useless universe.

You have no soul.

What is "the soul"?
How can you prove that it exists?

"Does that unit have a soul" is meaningless question on religious topic, which can easily provoke a 300 years long war. And we all know that history just loves to repeat itself.

Let's kick this back to more fundamentals. Do you have faith in something you cannot see and have not touched?

DNA for example. Have you actually ever seen some? You've seen representational pictures and maybe an electron microscope slide but have you ever gone searching for yourself and found some?

The people who put those pictures into text books did so for the purpose of educating others, but ultimately we take it on faith that they are correct.

Newton thought his laws of motion could explain how planets revolve around the sun. And it did. with a few wrinkles that people overlooked on faith. Then  Einstein popped up and proved Newton had made errors in his assumptions and presented a new theory that did explain how the solar system works. And now we take that on faith that he's right.

Who is to say that just because we haven't discovered something, doesn't mean it's there. The universe is full of things we haven't discovered. I simply have faith that by staying true to our need to be curious we will discover certain things that will lead on to more discoveries, and more.

It's funny though. Science seems to be catching up to religion. The Higgs Bosun was recently discovered and as well as asking what it can do, scientists are now arguing over why it can do what it does. So many theories that can not currently be proven yet camps are springing up defending these outlooks. They may seem to be operating off of logic but science is the pursuit of truth and each camp has faith that their truth is the right one.
 
Fortunately I have faith that we will not see a repeat of history where these divides will lead to scientists throwing lit bunsen's into lab's of the opposition with a petri of magnesium taped to the side.

If your still wondering if souls exist though? Well it's up to the individual. We can accept or reject truth and lies and the topic of having a soul is no different.

Seriously though. Why doesn't Seiv want a soul? He'd be like Voldermort living off Unicorn blood living a half life.

Does the soul exist? Here's one view on the matter

http://www.psycholog...idence-says-yes

DNA is not an entity. It's not a "spiral inside your body". It's a "rule", which describes some physiological processes. And the rule exists. As a rule of course.

Since the "soul" still doesn't describe any phisiological processes, and noone can even give the correct answer what it actually is, we can consider "soul" only as a part of corrupted ancient imagination.

[StarcloudSWG]

... DNA is a rule? A RULE? Did you pass biochemistry 101? Did you even *attend* biochemistry 101?

Modifié par StarcloudSWG, 06 novembre 2012 - 10:02 .

[Seival]

Sauruz wrote...

Seival wrote...

Of course Synthesis will not stop all conflicts. It will only stop the most deadly and pointless ones. The ones based on "Alien" word. "Alien" not it terms of different points of view, but in terms of complete difference and hostility on physiological and subconscious level.

Even if your rambling nonsense was true, the galaxy would eventually come into contact with other, "alien", galaxies.

And that would be just another brilliant story

[sharkboy421]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

The problem here is that Mass Effect was never hard, speculative science fiction; it was a Hollywood-style hero's epic through and through. Looking at the endings separate from the whole, they have their merits (you could write a book detailing the possible outcomes and ethical dilemmas of each). However, taken in context with the rest of the narrative, they don't fit at all. You don't get to completely change the direction of the narrative in the final act just because you had a really cool idea--those are best saved for your next project. Never sacrifice the story as a whole for the sake of an artistic whim.

Those conflicts and ideas described in the OP formed the core of their respective narratives. They worked because the authors devoted a lot of time and energy to them, considering how every detail would affect the final outcome. Mass Effect, on the other hand, is less about its ideas and more about its characters. Bioware's good at characters, but struggles with the hardcore speculative aspect of science fiction. They should have played to their strengths, especially in the final act. Yes, it's important to try new things, but it's just as important to know when that sort of thing is appropriate.

You said it perfectly.  Thank you Cheez.

[M Hedonist]

Seival doesn't believe in faith, psychology, statistics or common sense.
He only believes in Mass Relay test jumps.

[Redbelle]

Seival wrote...

Archonsg wrote...

@Seival

I am pretty sure the person who gave us the Character of James DiGriz would not condone the enforced conformity and acceptance at gunpoint a choice such as oh, Synthesis.

For one to quote an author and use one of his works as the basis of your "proof", isn't it rather pretentious to ignore his OTHER works and claim that the author would support *your* view point, contrary to what hus other works would suggest?

You didn't get it, did you? OP was not used to approve or disprove Synthesis, Control, or Destroy. It was used to show that any good sci-fi story has deep philosophical meaning, and different people might have different points of view on that meaning.

Very few people understood what I meant here. And if the rest can't understand that simple OP, then how can they understand ME3 ending in first place?

Maybe if you opened a new thread and titled it a little more concisely with a view that not everyone know's you really like Harry Harrison. Cause, not everyone has read it and these forums are like sidewalks. Everybody walks through them regardless of the signs saying For Harrison lovers only.

[The Night Mammoth]

classic Seival damage control.

He tells people they don't understand his points. He doesn't explain his points, or engage in any sort of logical debate. It's probably more an attempt to convince himself that his argument has legitimacy, more than anything else.

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 06 novembre 2012 - 10:00 .

[Davik Kang]

Suspire wrote...
If for some reason you wanna pretend all the BW interviews, all the info we have and all the info that exists on game development is all a big lie and they did plan it from the start, that would make it worse as the games have more inconsistancies than my grandma's skin. So fail anyway.

What other 99%? Cause from what I know, ME1>ME2>ME3 in order of quality and popularity (debatable for ME2, but it was then that the FPS crowd started liking BW, and even though I like the game, it's not for it's story). 
Like it's any secret that BW games have been getting worse with each release lol.

Edit: and about your last question, we have a number of things to blame for the abysmal drop in writing quality of the endings (even if the rest wasn't flawless writing, cause it really wasn't), pure bad decision making combined with rushed deadline, old team leaving the staff, over ambition and swollen egos, being more and more out of touch with your fans, wanting to do something "different" (er, just not different from Deus Ex and the Matrix) just for the sake of being edgy and cool etc. 

The guy who wrote ME1 wasn't even in ME3 at all, lol.

So.... in other words, yes, you do think that writers write their stories in the ordert that the audience perceives them.  Tops off the whole confused aspect of your entire post.

Redbelle wrote...

Davik Kang wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...
Davik Kang, he's dead, always.

OHHHHHHHHHHHHH.

Whoops I really should've got that.

However, it's not true!!!  I live!!!

Yay!




Whose Davik Kang?

A deeply wise man, who lived a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away.

Bumped into a guy called Revan once, who wanted to join the crew.  He didn't seem like all that really.

[Peranor]

Seival. Just bow out of this debate. At least have the decency to admit when you have lost, when you have been outsmarted.

Just face it, drayfish and many others called your BS. People are just laughing at your ignorant passive agressive posts at this point.

Modifié par anorling, 06 novembre 2012 - 10:01 .

[M Hedonist]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

classic Seival damage control.

He tells people they don't understand his points. He doesn't explain his points, or engage in any sort of logical debate. It's probably more an attempt to convince himself that his argument has legitimacy, more than anything else.

Next he's gonna post a FAQ, or FEQ for Frequently Evaded Questions.

[GreyLycanTrope]

Davik Kang wrote...

Redbelle wrote...
Whose Davik Kang?

A deeply wise man, who lived a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away.

Bumped into a guy called Revan once, who wanted to join the crew.  He didn't seem like all that really.

Wasn't going by Revan when he met Davik, he was going by Manly McBeefington in my case.

[AdmiralCheez]

StarcloudSWG wrote...

Synthesis comes down to two things: Either it allows conflict, which means conflict can be between synthetics and organics, or organics and organics, or synthetics and synthetics, in which case the Catalyst FAILS and Synthesis is NOT a solution; or it does NOT allow conflict, in which case everyone is *mind-controlled* into being peaceful, at least until life arises that is outside the mind-control network.

In any case, Seival, what you're missing in your 'oh my god the ending had so much thought put into it it's amazing' enthusiasm is this; the ending talks about secondary and tertiary themes as being key to the resolution of the game, and ignores the demonstrated primary themes of strength through cooperation, growth through diversity, self-determination of cultures being superior to early uplift, the will of sapient life to persist against overwhelming threats, and Synthesis being a stagnant dead end both technologically and culturally.

Deus Ex: Human Revolution *worked* because *the entire game* was about the themes of the ending. It led you to consider the different points of view, the different possibilities *well before* you had to make the choice.

It doesn't matter how much thought Mac and Casey put into the endings. They *failed* to tie the endings into the rest of the games *narrative*. Mass Effect was never about Synthetics vs. Organics; that was a subtheme.

Mass Effect was about *saving galactic civilization from extinction by the Reapers.*

I am requoting this post because it is a good post and I like it.

[Seival]

StarcloudSWG wrote...

... DNA is a rule? A RULE? Did you even pass biochemistry 101? Did you even *attend* biochemistry 101?

Of course it is. You don't have to be a scientist to know that.

Such scientific terms describe the mechanics of some particular processes, not "creating a picture of microscopical fraction".

Modifié par Seival, 06 novembre 2012 - 10:14 .

[Applepie_Svk]

anorling wrote...


Seival. Just bow out of this debate. At least have the decency to admit when you have lost, when you have been outsmarted.

Just face it, drayfish and many others called your BS. People are just laughing at your ignorant passive agressive posts at this point.

Since I start following Seival´s crusade I am doing nothing else then good laugh, he is simply genius of entertaiment...

[The Night Mammoth]

Sauruz wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

classic Seival damage control.

He tells people they don't understand his points. He doesn't explain his points, or engage in any sort of logical debate. It's probably more an attempt to convince himself that his argument has legitimacy, more than anything else.

Next he's gonna post a FAQ, or FEQ for Frequently Evaded Questions.

Please Seival, please, do an FAQ, I'm sure everyone would love to have a nice list of bullsh*t answers to questions no one really asked in the first place. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 06 novembre 2012 - 10:09 .

[sAxMoNkI]

Seival wrote...

DNA is not an entity. It's not a "spiral inside your body". It's a "rule", which describes some physiological processes. And the rule exists. As a rule of course.

Seival

Seival wrote...

DNA is not an entity. It's not a "spiral
inside your body". It's a "rule",

What u doing

Seival wrote...

DNA is not an entity. It's a "rule",

Seival

Seival wrote...

DNA is a "rule",

Stahp

[ArikadOdakirA]

I didn't think it was possible for the mass relay test theory thread to be topped.

I think we have a new champion.

[Dr_Extrem]

StarcloudSWG wrote...

Synthesis comes down to two things: Either it allows conflict, which means conflict can be between synthetics and organics, or organics and organics, or synthetics and synthetics, in which case the Catalyst FAILS and Synthesis is NOT a solution; or it does NOT allow conflict, in which case everyone is *mind-controlled* into being peaceful, at least until life arises that is outside the mind-control network.

In any case, Seival, what you're missing in your 'oh my god the ending had so much thought put into it it's amazing' enthusiasm is this; the ending talks about secondary and tertiary themes as being key to the resolution of the game, and ignores the demonstrated primary themes of strength through cooperation, growth through diversity, self-determination of cultures being superior to early uplift, the will of sapient life to persist against overwhelming threats, and Synthesis being a stagnant dead end both technologically and culturally.

Deus Ex: Human Revolution *worked* because *the entire game* was about the themes of the ending. It led you to consider the different points of view, the different possibilities *well before* you had to make the choice.

It doesn't matter how much thought Mac and Casey put into the endings. They *failed* to tie the Catalyst and its dialog into the rest of the games *narrative*. Mass Effect was never about Synthetics vs. Organics; that was a subtheme.

Mass Effect was about *saving galactic civilization from extinction by the Reapers.*

this one speaks the truth.

[GreyLycanTrope]

Seival wrote...

StarcloudSWG wrote...

... DNA is a rule? A RULE? Did you even pass biochemistry 101? Did you even *attend* biochemistry 101?

Of cource it is. You don't have to be a scientist to know that.

Such scientific terms describe the mechanics of some particular processes, not "createting a picture of microscopical fraction".

This post hurt my biology

[Redbelle]

Seival wrote...

Suspire wrote...

It's useless, anyone that doesn't like the ending just doesn't get the deep meaningful (f)art of Bioware writers, you should all know by now.
Ignore that they themselves said they made up the story as they went along, and just pretend it was all planned as the trolling to end all trollings.

The fact is that they didn't "made up the story as they went along". Untill the story isn't told to the very end - it's incomplete. You can't say what the story is about while it's incomplete. Only completely finished story can show you the whole picture that was intended.

No. They did split it up. specifically into ME1, ME2 and ME3. Each installment was treated as seperate but fed into an overaching plot involving Reapers.

With each installment you should be closer to understanding how the end game will turn out. The end game may not fit exactly with expectation brought about by each installment but you should be able to have a decent stab at it.

I don't think many of the fans were prepared for what how ME3 and Shepards story ended. I mean, it was highly likely he'd die. One of the plot devices writers can reach for is a sacrifice for the cause. But the cause was always beat the Reapers. Not have a chat with their hive mind and entertain idea's of helping them along with their ambitions.