313 réponses à ce sujet

[Dr_Extrem]

dreman9999 wrote...

EnvyTB075 wrote...

Its Dreman, stop expecting intelligent discussion.

Please, tell me that machines don't do what they are programmed to do.

edi gives joker a kiss to wish him good luck.

[Gamer790]

Well good for your brother OP. @#%$ ending is still @#%$ ending.

[dreman9999]

Reorte wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Reorte wrote...

That's got nothing to do with what I said. I didn't say anything about synthetics being the ones attacking. All I said was that organic - synthetic conflicts in Mass Effect seem to be no more significant than any other, particularly when we learn that a lot of them are being created by the Reapers anyway.

Since you end up shooting or being shot at by just about everyone apart from the elcor and volus you could make just as strong a case about it all being about how humanity is incapable of meeting new cultures without fighting them, as history has all too often demonstrated.

1. Your missing the fact here the reaper that cause this conflict is doing this because of the programing that was placed by the leviathens into the catalyst. That means they are part of the organic /synthetic conflict.

2.We had 2 case of synthics up rising with out the direct involvement of reapers.

3.You example is a bad case. That's a point that conflict is nature. Organics seek it.Synthetics only have conflict if they are forced to.

1) So what? Some fools screw up with their creation. One mistake doesn't generalise to inevitable, fundamental conflict that's somehow more fundamental and inevitable than what happens between organics.

2) So what? We've had plenty of cases of organics doing similar.

3) You're now contradicting your other points. And the geth heretics weren't forced into conflict.

1. But to a being that stuck in absolute thinking with no way to stop it self untill it does what it'sprogramed to do, it does. That the problem, the AIdoing this is stuck doing it's programing.

2.Thatmeans conflictis nature. It isgoing to happen no matter ifit synthetic or organic.The problem is that organics andynthetics arealien toone another. Anyone that looks back intohistory can see how the more different 2 self aware sides are, teh more conflict togo through.

3.  Legion tells us that they only attackedbecasue their gods told them to.

[dreman9999]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

EnvyTB075 wrote...

Its Dreman, stop expecting intelligent discussion.

Please, tell me that machines don't do what they are programmed to do.

edi gives joker a kiss to wish him good luck.

Yes, an unshackled AI that rewrote her programing to truely love kissed Joker.

She still is falowing her programing, the difference is She isthe one who wrote it. She maybe fallowing what'sin her programing but she wrote the programing.

[Kabooooom]

Pantanplan wrote...

How old is your brother? I think older people would react more positively to the ending than younger people would.

Eh, I kind of think that people react poorly to the endings if they are more RPG fans than shooter fans, have played the ME series through the entire trilogy, and have a basic understanding of literature. But I have no evidence to back that up - it just seems that way.

The sort of folks who don't mind the endings seem to fall into the category of people who were introduced to mass effect with the third installment, and are therefore less invested in it, aren't particularly bothered by inconsistencies within stories, and don't particularly care much for resolution in stories.

The rest of people who played the entire trilogy and still like the endings seem to be in the minority. I think the major issue is that the endings were not satisfying. And satisfaction is directly proportional to the degree that one expects to be satisfied. Long time ME fans expected more, and because I am one of them, I don't blame them for it either.

[Twinzam.V]

dreman9999 wrote...

Reorte wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Reorte wrote...

That's got nothing to do with what I said. I didn't say anything about synthetics being the ones attacking. All I said was that organic - synthetic conflicts in Mass Effect seem to be no more significant than any other, particularly when we learn that a lot of them are being created by the Reapers anyway.

Since you end up shooting or being shot at by just about everyone apart from the elcor and volus you could make just as strong a case about it all being about how humanity is incapable of meeting new cultures without fighting them, as history has all too often demonstrated.

1. Your missing the fact here the reaper that cause this conflict is doing this because of the programing that was placed by the leviathens into the catalyst. That means they are part of the organic /synthetic conflict.

2.We had 2 case of synthics up rising with out the direct involvement of reapers.

3.You example is a bad case. That's a point that conflict is nature. Organics seek it.Synthetics only have conflict if they are forced to.

1) So what? Some fools screw up with their creation. One mistake doesn't generalise to inevitable, fundamental conflict that's somehow more fundamental and inevitable than what happens between organics.

2) So what? We've had plenty of cases of organics doing similar.

3) You're now contradicting your other points. And the geth heretics weren't forced into conflict.

1. But to a being that stuck in absolute thinking with no way to stop it self untill it does what it'sprogramed to do, it does. That the problem, the AIdoing this is stuck doing it's programing.

2.Thatmeans conflictis nature. It isgoing to happen no matter ifit synthetic or organic.The problem is that organics andynthetics arealien toone another. Anyone that looks back intohistory can see how the more different 2 self aware sides are, teh more conflict togo through.

3.  Legion tells us that they only attackedbecasue their gods told them to.

1.He can obey his programing and still express his views. Just look at EDI (ME2).

2. Javik says that another race build synthetics and they were kicking their synthetic asses till the Reapers appeared. Shepard can stop the Quarian/Geth conflict no prob. The Catalyst is stuck with an obsolete programing.

3.The heretics joined willingly the Reapers and they influenced the heretics to attack (Catalyst was cheating, the Reapers are starting the synthetics attacks).

Modifié par Twinzam.V, 03 décembre 2012 - 08:21 .

[dreman9999]

Twinzam.V wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Reorte wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Reorte wrote...

That's got nothing to do with what I said. I didn't say anything about synthetics being the ones attacking. All I said was that organic - synthetic conflicts in Mass Effect seem to be no more significant than any other, particularly when we learn that a lot of them are being created by the Reapers anyway.

Since you end up shooting or being shot at by just about everyone apart from the elcor and volus you could make just as strong a case about it all being about how humanity is incapable of meeting new cultures without fighting them, as history has all too often demonstrated.

1. Your missing the fact here the reaper that cause this conflict is doing this because of the programing that was placed by the leviathens into the catalyst. That means they are part of the organic /synthetic conflict.

2.We had 2 case of synthics up rising with out the direct involvement of reapers.

3.You example is a bad case. That's a point that conflict is nature. Organics seek it.Synthetics only have conflict if they are forced to.

1) So what? Some fools screw up with their creation. One mistake doesn't generalise to inevitable, fundamental conflict that's somehow more fundamental and inevitable than what happens between organics.

2) So what? We've had plenty of cases of organics doing similar.

3) You're now contradicting your other points. And the geth heretics weren't forced into conflict.

1. But to a being that stuck in absolute thinking with no way to stop it self untill it does what it'sprogramed to do, it does. That the problem, the AIdoing this is stuck doing it's programing.

2.That means conflictis nature. It isgoing to happen no matter ifit synthetic or organic.The problem is that organics andynthetics arealien toone another. Anyone that looks back intohistory can see how the more different 2 self aware sides are, teh more conflict togo through.

3.  Legion tells us that they only attackedbecasue their gods told them to.

1.He can obey his programing and still express his views. Just look at EDI (ME2).

2. Javik says that another race build synthetics and they were kicking their synthetic asses till the Reapers. Shepard can stop the Quarian/Geth conflict no prob. The Catalyst is stuck with an obsolete programing.

3.The heretics joined willingly the Reapers and they influenced the heretics to attack (Catalyst was cheating, the Reapers are starting the synthetics attacks).

1. EDI did not express her viewsin ME2 when She was shackled. Only when She was unshackled. You also missing the fact here the catalyst has no morality to base on to express his views out side of his programing, which is to perserve life. He has no consern over what others feel.

2.Again , the reaper a machines that are fallowing the programing set by the leviathan via the catalyst. Any thing the reapers do is because of how theleviathen programmed the catalyst. That means the reapers arenot the center of the conflict or start ofthe conflict. They are just part of it.

3. A willing slave is still a slave.

Modifié par dreman9999, 03 décembre 2012 - 08:24 .

[KingZayd]

dreman9999 wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

EnvyTB075 wrote...

Its Dreman, stop expecting intelligent discussion.

Please, tell me that machines don't do what they are programmed to do.

edi gives joker a kiss to wish him good luck.

Yes, an unshackled AI that rewrote her programing to truely love kissed Joker.

She still is falowing her programing, the difference is She isthe one who wrote it. She maybe fallowing what'sin her programing but she wrote the programing.

Why  would she want to change her program in that way? 

[dreman9999]

KingZayd wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

EnvyTB075 wrote...

Its Dreman, stop expecting intelligent discussion.

Please, tell me that machines don't do what they are programmed to do.

edi gives joker a kiss to wish him good luck.

Yes, an unshackled AI that rewrote her programing to truely love kissed Joker.

She still is falowing her programing, the difference is She isthe one who wrote it. She maybe fallowing what'sin her programing but she wrote the programing.

Why  would she want to change her program in that way? 

Because she cares for Joker and wanted to see what loving someone would be like.
She tells you this.

Both shackled and unshackled synthetic fallow their programing...the difference is that an unshackled Ai has the freedom to choose the programing.

EDI and Javik have an arguement over this. Even She says she is fallowing her programing.

Modifié par dreman9999, 03 décembre 2012 - 08:42 .

[Cloaking_Thane]

Forgive me I havent played the ending since EC.

Was it ever explained where the "vials" BGR came from?

[dtrain24]

The ending could have been so much more, it was really rushed.

[geceka]

AlanC9 wrote...

Well, there still is a problem there, since letting civilizations get technological is inherently risky -- we know it's risky because they eventually rolled snake eyes, either in Shepard's cycle or the next one.

Though considering how many cycles they got away with --- 20,000? -- it looks like the probability of failure was relatively low. Forever is a long long time.

Yes, but this cycle was very special: On one hand, the Reapers failed to eradicate the Protheans early enough (they had reverse-engineered the relays and built the Conduit), weren't thorough enough (missed Ilos) and didn't realize that the Keepers got neutered before it was too late. They have also failed to eradicate the Crucible design, and their Vanguard, Sovereign, failed to exert the contingency plan, maybe because of his hubris.

The starting conditions for this cycle were absolutely extraordinary, and Shepard managed to seize that chance. There is a strong component in the plot that derives victory not just from Shepard actions, but also the cycles before it (Crucible, Protheans, etc...), so the Reapers were actually overthrown by a joint effort of multiple cycles, which is quite nice as a story element, too. Metaphorically speaking, they failed to eradicate chaos as thoroughly as they thought.

Twinzam.V wrote...

2. Javik says that another race build synthetics and they were kicking their synthetic asses till the Reapers appeared. Shepard can stop the Quarian/Geth conflict no prob. The Catalyst is stuck with an obsolete programing.

If anything, that only supports the catalyst's argument: Both cycles built synthetics, both were at war with them. That the organics ultimately succeeded in defeating the synthetics doesn't mean anything. They could build more advanced ones later on, again believing to have them under control, again getting thrown into a conflict which they might not win again. Or they might win again, and this type of cycle start again, until a point is reached where the synthetics are sufficiently advanced to wipe out the organics.

[javeart]

geceka wrote...

(...)
Uhm, are you serious? You are taking my argument basically verbatim and spin it as a counter-argument? I said they do not need to fear organic civilizations because they exert such control over their development. Hence, if they give up that control and let them develop beyond what they can control, they would have something to fear (e.g. losing their extinction cycle or having an AI developed right under them, which can surpass them).

They do exterminate them when they reach a certain level, only that it's not Stone Age, but "Mass Effect" age (which, of course, might look like "Stone Age" for someone as advanced as the Reapers).

(...)
No, no chaos if you control their development. Sovereign had this awesome speech, you know, where he says how organics develop along the paths they desire, how they introduce order to the chaos of organic development, and how an organic species can only exist if the Reapers allow it, and they will end when they demand it.

The goal of the Reapers is to ensure that no technological singularity capable of wiping out all organic life can occur. The means they choose to ensure this goal is tight control over the development of organics and harvesting them precisely at the technological level where they begin to become capable of creating said singularity. It is all interwoven, but "goals" does not equal "means".

Also, Reapers only care about galactic scales, they do not care about if organic destroy their own planets, wage puny wars against each other, etc... This is not chaos to them, because they extinguish these civilizations before they are advanced enough to affect the galaxy as a whole with whatever they do! Is it chaos to you when some ants are waging war in your garden? But you will kill them before they advance to a level where they can actually affect the garden, e.g. when they multiply in numbers out of control or whatever and run a risk of destroying the garden. That's the situation how the Reapers perceive it.

(...)
They are not interested in quantity. They are interested in "preserving a species in Reaper form". We do not know what exactly this entails, and it does not matter for the overarching theme. For them, the difference between a galaxy-spanning organic empire and said empire preserved in Reaper form is non-existant, and that is all we need to know (again, you don't need to agree, that's all the Reapers' perspective.

ok, there are other things that I find confusing but cutting to the chase:

so they only care about "preserving a species in Reaper form". what does synthetics have to do with that?  organics can eventually create synthetics that will kill them, I take that should be the problem, because they' don't really care about saving "ants" lives. then, what's the need of letting organic civlisations evolve to the point of creating them? why not harvesting much earlier?

Modifié par javeart, 03 décembre 2012 - 10:39 .

[Peranor]

Your brother just finished ME3? Give him my condolences.

[Bourne Endeavor]

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

Forgive me I havent played the ending since EC.

Was it ever explained where the "vials" BGR came from?

Nope. EC just tossed in some exposition that created more consistency issues but had a flashy slide show for closure and retconned the relays blowing up. They went from being an abomination to simply disappointing but still equally stupid.

Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 03 décembre 2012 - 10:46 .

[geceka]

javeart wrote...

because they' don't really care about saving "ants" lives.

They do. Hence the tedious harvest mostly driven by slow ground battle, rather than simply bombarding everything into oblivion from space.

javeart wrote...

then, what's the need of letting organic civlizations evolve to the point of creating them? why not harvesting much earlier?

We do not know. it doesn't matter. From a gameplay perspective, it would have been quite a boring game if our protagonist was a sword-wielding medieval knight when the Reapers arrive.

More believable though is the idea that the Reapers give every species the chance to become a space-faring, galaxy-spanning civilization, the "apex of their glory", as Sovereign puts it, before "they are extinguished". Let them enjoy the privilege of existence until the solution must take place at the latest, rather than destroy them as soon as they are discovered. The ability to open a Mass Relay could simply be the "test" a species has to pass in order to be selected for harvesting. The catalyst might simply find it desirable (for moral reasons?) to let each species live as long as he can afford to let them. We do not know exactly.

Is there really a point to nitpick about every tiny detail? Is there a need to explain every little detail in the first place, or does it maybe not add anything to the story? What the catalyst scene wants to tell you is why the Reapers are doing what they do, not necessarily how exactly they do it or plan to do it, and I think the "why" comes across very clearly, with the only possible confusion I could see being to understand the difference between "synthetics destroying ALL organic life" and "Reapers harvesting ADVANCED organic life", hence the whole "yo dawg" meme that seems so hard to get rid of.

A much more interesting question would be why the Reapers seem to enact their harvest in the most vile, horrible way possible, and I don't know an answer to that, other than the catalyst maybe caring much more about ruthless efficiency, rather than a gentle, mostly painless transition to Reaper form. Again, we do not need to understand the Reapers' methods to understand the plot, we only need to understand their motivation.

ME1 and ME2 also have *a lot* of details that are not explained, might not make perfect sense if looked at from all angles, etc... If you want to hate a plot, you can always find minuscule things to rage against.

[3DandBeyond]

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

Pantanplan wrote...

How old is your brother? I think older people would react more positively to the ending than younger people would.

One of my closer friends is 60, and she hates the endings at least almost as much as I do. That's a 40 year age difference.

Still, how old is the guy?

Yeah, age is no factor really except I have yet to hear from anyone who is older like me that likes the endings.  I do think there's a strange conundrum that is that people who tend to like more action heavy games with flimsier (or shorter) stories tend to like the endings far more than those that are more interested in stories.  At least that is what I've gotten from any comment where the person just loves the endings-the ones that "love" it say it's cool, being Shepard reaper god is cool, green eyes are cool, and similar things.  There are others that mostly seem to make no sense and say they love the endings and they shouldn't be changed, that also have banners that say that so and so deserves a better ending.  When pressed, they will say they could have been done better but will attack you if you say the same thing.  One repeated poster would have preferred the whole galaxy was destroyed, one thinks putting people onto planets against their will on reservations while synthesis is happening would have been great, and also believes Shepard catalyst is like Shepard having a baby and that Liara will continue to have a relationship with him/her after control with Shepard either as a reaper or as the Citadel or as the catalyst baby.

I have yet to have anyone be able to coherently explain in detail how the endings affirm the decisions players made in the game, how making a choice makes sense, how being forced to make a choice is actually even fun, how not playing the ending and just listening to the kid talk is fun, how all of it feels like a win.  Some try to do so because they say the slides show that, but the slides don't expose consequences.  And yet, some of the same people think anyone who dislikes the endings don't want consequences.  The whole thing is a mess and perhaps my age just makes me less tolerant of garbage that is perpetrated on people and claimed to be intelligent.  When George Harrison died, one main thing was always said about him; he didn't suffer fools gladly.  Accepting these endings is like accepting anything a fool says.  They are not smart and in fact as someone who loved the stories and lives in the US and qualifies for AARP membership, I truly despise the endings.  I'd have rather have had a lot more action than this garbage.

[Mcfly616]

I like classic sci fi literature. Seeing as how the endings were directly inspired by Isaac Asimov as well as other works of sci fi across several mediums, I actually like it a lot (the EC and Leviathan.....not the original vague endings.)

[javeart]

geceka wrote...

javeart wrote...

because they' don't really care about saving "ants" lives.

They do. Hence the tedious harvest mostly driven by slow ground battle, rather than simply bombarding everything into oblivion from space.

javeart wrote...

then, what's the need of letting organic civlizations evolve to the point of creating them? why not harvesting much earlier?

We do not know. it doesn't matter. From a gameplay perspective, it would have been quite a boring game if our protagonist was a sword-wielding medieval knight when the Reapers arrive.

More believable though is the idea that the Reapers give every species the chance to become a space-faring, galaxy-spanning civilization, the "apex of their glory", as Sovereign puts it, before "they are extinguished". Let them enjoy the privilege of existence until the solution must take place at the latest, rather than destroy them as soon as they are discovered. The ability to open a Mass Relay could simply be the "test" a species has to pass in order to be selected for harvesting. The catalyst might simply find it desirable (for moral reasons?) to let each species live as long as he can afford to let them. We do not know exactly.

Is there really a point to nitpick about every tiny detail? Is there a need to explain every little detail in the first place, or does it maybe not add anything to the story? What the catalyst scene wants to tell you is why the Reapers are doing what they do, not necessarily how exactly they do it or plan to do it, and I think the "why" comes across very clearly, with the only possible confusion I could see being to understand the difference between "synthetics destroying ALL organic life" and "Reapers harvesting ADVANCED organic life", hence the whole "yo dawg" meme that seems so hard to get rid of.

A much more interesting question would be why the Reapers seem to enact their harvest in the most vile, horrible way possible, and I don't know an answer to that, other than the catalyst maybe caring much more about ruthless efficiency, rather than a gentle, mostly painless transition to Reaper form. Again, we do not need to understand the Reapers' methods to understand the plot, we only need to understand their motivation.

ME1 and ME2 also have *a lot* of details that are not explained, might not make perfect sense if looked at from all angles, etc... If you want to hate a plot, you can always find minuscule things to rage against.

But it does matter, coherence between their methods and their goals is important to make their motives believable.

Anyway, I'm not really bitter about the ending, I didn't like it, but it's ok, I still enjoy ME3. I just don't think they did a good job with reapers motives and (my original point) I don't think Leviathan fixed them.

I wasn't expecting any explanation on reaper motives at all, honestly, I was just fine with "reapers are evil", there's lot of stories involving monsters of very different kinds that doesn't give you explanations about their motives, and if it's well done, it's totally ok. I'd rather have no explanation at all that one that seems so illogical. But that's not even my main concern about the endings, this is something I can quite easily put up with

Modifié par javeart, 03 décembre 2012 - 11:57 .

[Mcfly616]

I always find it odd when people say that "the Reapers motives shouldn't have been explained."

They would've been the same people who would've complained if the Reapers were your everyday cliche videogame antagonist. Just "bad" guys that are there for nothing more but to kill you and need to be shot. That sounds like it'd be Exciting!


Not.

[Yaos]

Mcfly616 wrote...

I always find it odd when people say that "the Reapers motives shouldn't have been explained."

They would've been the same people who would've complained if the Reapers were your everyday cliche videogame antagonist. Just "bad" guys that are there for nothing more but to kill you and need to be shot. That sounds like it'd be Exciting!


Not.

Many people just assumed they wanted to harvest races to make them become a new life form and make them aware of a whole other realm of existence, and because they thought that only that "apex race" existence was worth living.

I thought that was way more fitting.

[javeart]

Mcfly616 wrote...

I always find it odd when people say that "the Reapers motives shouldn't have been explained."

They would've been the same people who would've complained if the Reapers were your everyday cliche videogame antagonist. Just "bad" guys that are there for nothing more but to kill you and need to be shot. That sounds like it'd be Exciting!


Not.

I didn't say it shouldn't  be explained, I say it wouldn't necessarily be bad. Mystery can be good for an anthagonist, and mysterious evil creatures works fine in lots of movies and books. I'm quite sure I would have not complained

Modifié par javeart, 04 décembre 2012 - 01:08 .

[Mcfly616]

Yaos wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

I always find it odd when people say that "the Reapers motives shouldn't have been explained."

They would've been the same people who would've complained if the Reapers were your everyday cliche videogame antagonist. Just "bad" guys that are there for nothing more but to kill you and need to be shot. That sounds like it'd be Exciting!


Not.

Many people just assumed they wanted to harvest races to make them become a new life form and make them aware of a whole other realm of existence, and because they thought that only that "apex race" existence was worth living.

I thought that was way more fitting.

so....because it didn't turn out the way you assumed it would, their explaination is "bad/contrived/awful"?

(By the way, I had the same exact assumption as those "many people" did. I also hated the StarBrat and the original endings)

[KingZayd]

dreman9999 wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

EnvyTB075 wrote...

Its Dreman, stop expecting intelligent discussion.

Please, tell me that machines don't do what they are programmed to do.

edi gives joker a kiss to wish him good luck.

Yes, an unshackled AI that rewrote her programing to truely love kissed Joker.

She still is falowing her programing, the difference is She isthe one who wrote it. She maybe fallowing what'sin her programing but she wrote the programing.

Why  would she want to change her program in that way? 

Because she cares for Joker and wanted to see what loving someone would be like.
She tells you this.

Both shackled and unshackled synthetic fallow their programing...the difference is that an unshackled Ai has the freedom to choose the programing.

EDI and Javik have an arguement over this. Even She says she is fallowing her programing.

You're not getting the point. Why does she care for Joker? It wasn't in her programming for her to do so, was it?

Modifié par KingZayd, 04 décembre 2012 - 01:16 .

[Fawx9]

Mcfly616 wrote...

Yaos wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

I always find it odd when people say that "the Reapers motives shouldn't have been explained."

They would've been the same people who would've complained if the Reapers were your everyday cliche videogame antagonist. Just "bad" guys that are there for nothing more but to kill you and need to be shot. That sounds like it'd be Exciting!


Not.

Many people just assumed they wanted to harvest races to make them become a new life form and make them aware of a whole other realm of existence, and because they thought that only that "apex race" existence was worth living.

I thought that was way more fitting.

so....because it didn't turn out the way you assumed it would, their explaination is "bad/contrived/awful"?

(By the way, I had the same exact assumption as those "many people" did. I also hated the StarBrat and the original endings)

I think the problem was what they got reduced too. Not so much that they had a backstory, though I would have honestly preferred if they just left it alone. 

In the OE, we basically got that they were this crazy peron's tools to solve this non sensical problem.

We went from horrors of dark space to a childs play thing.