617 réponses à ce sujet

[clennon8]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@clennon
Are you willing to concede that depending how you look at things, things might not be as *you* see them? To invoke the difference again: there's quite a difference between "I am making my choice based on the assumption that Shepard is being indoctrinated" and telling Synthesis supporters they're a "cult of indoctrination" (you did that, in case you don't recall).

(I hope this short excursion doesn't get the thread locked. Im trying to extend the "there is no prescribable perspective from which to see the endings" hypothesis)

I apologize for that months old remark and others like it.

In my feeble defense, I've long since lost count of how many times I've been accused of being a fundamentalist, conspiracy theorist, cultist, and more recently "binary thinker" and "genocide fetishist."  And many, many more that I won't bother to list.

Btw, I've already conceded on multiple occasions, most recently in my "Transhumanism is good..." thread, that it is indeed quite possible that the writers intended the literal interpretation that you prescribe.  I think that would suck, but I admit the possibility.

[wright1978]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...
What about Low-EMS destroy then? That is quite a different setting than the others. Being ME-meets-fallout more or less.

Unfortunately, it goes the whole way and destroys Earth and possible quite a few other homeworlds. Even dismissing the symbolism of destroying civilization here, it would make me feel bad. What I'd like is a Destroy variant where the relays are destroyed but the homeworlds are more or less ok, and where the epilogue tells us that the destruction of the relays has, by necessity, resulted in a new age of exploring the unknown spaces of the galaxy. I can tell you I'd be really conflicted if we had that, for I like the hyper-advanced post-Synthesis civilization, but the spirit of this Destroy variant is very appealing. It would definitely not be boring.

And there's plenty of people like me for whom that would be a completely unacceptable, unappealing uniteresting variant of destroy. As someone else stated on a different thread the only way these 2 alternate strands could be faciliatated is by a paragon and a renegade version of destroy with different results on the relays.

[DeinonSlayer]

BleedingUranium wrote...

So, again, how does synthesis solve the supposed organics getting killed by synthetics problem, if more synthetics can be made?

"Gee, these crates are heavy. We ought to make a robot to-I HAVE A BLOCK WHICH PREVENTS ME FROM PURSUING THAT ACTION. *coughs* Excuse me, what was I saying? Right, back to work."

[Argolas]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

So, again, how does synthesis solve the supposed organics getting killed by synthetics problem, if more synthetics can be made?

"Gee, these crates are heavy. We ought to make a robot to-I HAVE A BLOCK WHICH PREVENTS ME FROM PURSUING THAT ACTION. *coughs* Excuse me, what was I saying? Right, back to work."

That really does ensure peace!

[DeinonSlayer]

Argolas wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

So, again, how does synthesis solve the supposed organics getting killed by synthetics problem, if more synthetics can be made?

"Gee, these crates are heavy. We ought to make a robot to-I HAVE A BLOCK WHICH PREVENTS ME FROM PURSUING THAT ACTION. *coughs* Excuse me, what was I saying? Right, back to work."

That really does ensure peace!

Either that or it acts as a shock collar if you get out of line. 

[BansheeOwnage]

Argolas wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

So, again, how does synthesis solve the supposed organics getting killed by synthetics problem, if more synthetics can be made?

"Gee, these crates are heavy. We ought to make a robot to-I HAVE A BLOCK WHICH PREVENTS ME FROM PURSUING THAT ACTION. *coughs* Excuse me, what was I saying? Right, back to work."

That really does ensure peace!

Rewriting minds! 

[Iakus]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Argolas wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

So, again, how does synthesis solve the supposed organics getting killed by synthetics problem, if more synthetics can be made?

"Gee, these crates are heavy. We ought to make a robot to-I HAVE A BLOCK WHICH PREVENTS ME FROM PURSUING THAT ACTION. *coughs* Excuse me, what was I saying? Right, back to work."

That really does ensure peace!

Either that or it acts as a shock collar if you get out of line. 

Control:  "So the Illusive Man was right all along"

Synthesis:  "So the thorian was right all along"

[CoolioThane]

lol @ synthesis

[Iakus]

wright1978 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...
What about Low-EMS destroy then? That is quite a different setting than the others. Being ME-meets-fallout more or less.

Unfortunately, it goes the whole way and destroys Earth and possible quite a few other homeworlds. Even dismissing the symbolism of destroying civilization here, it would make me feel bad. What I'd like is a Destroy variant where the relays are destroyed but the homeworlds are more or less ok, and where the epilogue tells us that the destruction of the relays has, by necessity, resulted in a new age of exploring the unknown spaces of the galaxy. I can tell you I'd be really conflicted if we had that, for I like the hyper-advanced post-Synthesis civilization, but the spirit of this Destroy variant is very appealing. It would definitely not be boring.

And there's plenty of people like me for whom that would be a completely unacceptable, unappealing uniteresting variant of destroy. As someone else stated on a different thread the only way these 2 alternate strands could be faciliatated is by a paragon and a renegade version of destroy with different results on the relays.

Hey it worked for Control, so why not? 

[CynicalShep]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Argolas wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

So, again, how does synthesis solve the supposed organics getting killed by synthetics problem, if more synthetics can be made?

"Gee, these crates are heavy. We ought to make a robot to-I HAVE A BLOCK WHICH PREVENTS ME FROM PURSUING THAT ACTION. *coughs* Excuse me, what was I saying? Right, back to work."

That really does ensure peace!

Either that or it acts as a shock collar if you get out of line. 

Great. Reminds me of this

[clarkusdarkus]

A year ago i would have argued with you OP,but im drained.....drained of the ending talk and who, why, how it all is and pans out.....

The ME3 ending will go down in history and follow the name of ME around forever....

[Ieldra]

clennon8 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

@clennon
Are you willing to concede that depending how you look at things, things might not be as *you* see them? To invoke the difference again: there's quite a difference between "I am making my choice based on the assumption that Shepard is being indoctrinated" and telling Synthesis supporters they're a "cult of indoctrination" (you did that, in case you don't recall).

(I hope this short excursion doesn't get the thread locked. Im trying to extend the "there is no prescribable perspective from which to see the endings" hypothesis)

I apologize for that months old remark and others like it.

In my feeble defense, I've long since lost count of how many times I've been accused of being a fundamentalist, conspiracy theorist, cultist, and more recently "binary thinker" and "genocide fetishist."  And many, many more that I won't bother to list.

Btw, I've already conceded on multiple occasions, most recently in my "Transhumanism is good..." thread, that it is indeed quite possible that the writers intended the literal interpretation that you prescribe.  I think that would suck, but I admit the possibility.

I may have been out of line a few times myself. Sorry about that.

This may be the time to admit that I recognize that the Catalyst scene has an unreal quality to it. However, I attribute it to a common theme in the monomyth which Bioware may have tried to implement here, namely that the hero must enter an otherworldly place to find the solution to the problem. It goes hand in hand with the Catalyst's pretension to divinity (in the narrative, not in-world. The writers wanted the Catalyst to come across that way to the players, not to Shepard). This interpretation has the advantage of being compatible with Bioware's admittance that Campbell's monomyth has influenced the story of Mass Effect. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 14 février 2013 - 07:56 .

[clennon8]

All is well. I feel better. Seriously.

Maybe we'll all have a few more answers a month from now. And whatever they are, I'll be able to cope with them.

[SpamBot2000]

Because synthesis and control are somehow less boring? By being prescriptions for an everlasting order?

With the destroy ending, the universe will happen spontaneous events during the next billion years. Synth & control not so much.

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 14 février 2013 - 08:22 .

[BansheeOwnage]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Because synthesis and control are somehow less boring? By being prescriptions for an everlasting order?

With the destroy ending, the universe will happen spontaneous events during the next billion years. Synth & control not so much.

Good point actually.

@Clennon I hope the next DLC gives us some answers. They said they are listening, and what fans want it pretty clear.

[Meltemph]

I don't understand the argument... The only way destroy could be boring is if you presuppose events after destroy. Destroy is the most interesting, because it allows the most amount of possibilities. Destroy gets rid of a "over lord" that protects/defends/attacks all. It opens up technology to go in any way possible, while not getting rid of the most interesting parts of that technology, and that is achieving it.

Nothing in the other endings, besides the reapers, adds anything to the MEU that the game couldn't achieve without the super beam. The only justification of thinking the other endings are any more interesting is if you are so infatuated with an idea to the point that you think bending the MEU to your will is more important then the unknown. With destroy you don't have any real inclination "what is next" in terms of technological advances or the sociological hierarchy, specifically because there are no "all powerful beings" policing the galaxy.

This may be the time to admit that I recognize that the Catalyst scene has an unreal quality to it. However, I attribute it to a common theme in the monomyth which Bioware may have tried to implement here, namely that the hero must enter an otherworldly place to find the solution to the problem. It goes hand in hand with the Catalyst's pretension to divinity (in the narrative, not in-world. The writers wanted the Catalyst to come across that way to the players, not to Shepard). This interpretation has the advantage of being compatible with Bioware's admittance that Campbell's monomyth has influenced the story of Mass Effect.

This says more about you, then them. There is nothing that specifically states the intent of the Mac writing, with these endings. You are putting in your own interpretation of a lack of understanding, information, and knowledge of the writers intent, in order to shape a narrative you personally want.

[AlanC9]

But the writers did say that they were influenced by the monomyth. When something that looks like it might be out of the monomyth turns up in a game, and the writers say they were influenced by the monomyth, it's not unreasonable to infer that the story element looks like it's from the monomyth because it is from the monomyth.

Doesn't make the interpretation certain, of course.

Modifié par AlanC9, 14 février 2013 - 09:01 .

[CosmicGnosis]

Ieldra2 wrote...

A Destroy epilogue with destroyed relays could have told us how the old pathways between the stars have gone and new ones have to be explored, opening new frontiers and places never seen before. It could've told us how the relays prevented us from ever looking into the space between them, which we must now confront. That would have been interesting, and it would have appealed to why most of us like science fiction.

The single most compelling argument for Destroy has just come from a Synthesis fan.

You know, this really does make Destroy more appealing. The synthetic sacrifice still kind of ruins it, though...

[Meltemph]

AlanC9 wrote...


But the writers did say that they were influenced by the monomyth. When something that looks like it might be out of the monomyth turns up in a game, and the writers say they were influenced by the monomyth, it's not unreasonable to infer that the story element looks like it's from the monomyth because it is from the monomyth.

Doesn't make the interpretation certain, of course.

I'm not sure I get the reference.... The hero's journy a lot of the time doesnt end in a "divine" ending.  Perhaps the stories Ieldra2 reads have all ended like that, but there are many many more that dont.  The assumption that because the Heroe's journy can be pureply aragorical or thematic in its endings, doesnt mean this story does.  I'm not sure how one could make the assumption otherwise, beyond wanting or needing it to to fit a specific narative, also typically if one is going that route, they make it abundently clear that is what they are doing, this is not the case with ME3 though.  It is perfectly possible to take the ending scene as literal, and everything we are shown after the choice IS literal, so I'm not seeing a natural connection to the assumption that the hero's journy(monomyth) in this case is what its trying to be portrayed.

[TheRealJayDee]

I really, really wish all these ending wars would just end. I have my position, and I generally find the arguments from "my side" to be way more convincing, and I find the most offensive posts come from "the other sides". But all in all I'm just completely sick of all this "fan vs fan" madness Bioware has brought upon us. Is that what anyone would want?
Yes, I would have wished for a more "traditional" ending to what I never found to be a very innovative story. Would a generic "you win" ending in many variations with the option for a "you lose" scenario have hurt the franchise, or honestly disappointed those who now favour what we have now? I don't know for sure, I don't think so.

What we have now is so far from the "discussing the endings with other fans" I'd imagined before release that at times I could almost cry. I don't think the endings are well written, or that they fit the trilogy, and they are definitely unhealthy for the community/fanbase. Those who are still actively discussing the game seem to be deadlocked in some kind of ideological trench warfare, and that's not what I think a game trilogy like Mass Effect should achieve. I'm not even saying videogames shouldn't have the ability to achieve that, but it's my strong belief that Mass Effect shouldn't. 

Auld Wulf wrote...

It's clear that almost every person who's chosen Destroy (if not every person) was raised on video games; with little input from films, music, or books.

Pleasepleaseplease stop it?! You're better than this nonsense - I want to believe that! 

[Ieldra]

Meltemph wrote...

This may be the time to admit that I recognize that the Catalyst scene has an unreal quality to it. However, I attribute it to a common theme in the monomyth which Bioware may have tried to implement here, namely that the hero must enter an otherworldly place to find the solution to the problem. It goes hand in hand with the Catalyst's pretension to divinity (in the narrative, not in-world. The writers wanted the Catalyst to come across that way to the players, not to Shepard). This interpretation has the advantage of being compatible with Bioware's admittance that Campbell's monomyth has influenced the story of Mass Effect.

This says more about you, then them. There is nothing that specifically states the intent of the Mac writing, with these endings. You are putting in your own interpretation of a lack of understanding, information, and knowledge of the writers intent, in order to shape a narrative you personally want.

And this is different from what everyone else is doing....exactly how? Everyone is biased, and everyone attempts to interpret the ending scenario in order to take something away from the story they personally want. Having said that, I usually prefer not to speculate about the writers' intent, but much of the controversy is about how we are *supposed* to take the endings. In this specific case, I think I have the better argument. Bioware *has* said that the monomyth has played a part in the creation of ME's storyline. I am not speculating in a vacuum here. This, btw, should illustrate that perspective determines how we react to things. If you aren't aware of those monomyth elements I mentioned, then you won't see them. You'll notice the unreality of the Catalyst scene, and maybe you'll ask yourself: is this just Shepard having lost a lot of blood, or does it have a deeper meaning? Possibly you see what I called the Catalyst's pretensions to divinity because it connects with a cultural meme. And then there's another split in perspective: If you don't - or wouldn't - like that the Catalyst is presented like that, will you acknowledge it nonetheless and hate it, or will you refuse to see it? Yet another split in perspective: how different are you from your Shepard? If you the player acknowledge that the Catalyst presentation connects with religious memes, and hate it, are you aware of your position as a player different from the protagonist, can you split your perspective so that your Shepard is not required to acknowledge in-world what you cannot avoid to acknowlege on the meta-level?

Perspective determines what we see, and each element of a story which can be interpreted in different ways adds to the number of possible perspectives. Which elements are literal, which are symbolic, which are gameplay convenience? If they are symbolic, what do they represent? Ask a dozen of these questions and collect all the different answers, and you'll get an idea of just how much we see things as we are, not as they are. The methods of empirical science have been created to mitigate the effect of this, but unfortunately - or fortunately - we cannot subject ME3's endings to scientific inquiry because we are missing significant information and Bioware' s not willing to supply it.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

john_sheparrd wrote...

destroy forever
****off with your synthesis bull****

You can't even spell "Shepard." How do you rate?

[DoomsdayDevice]

****

[wright1978]

TheRealJayDee wrote...

I really, really wish all these ending wars would just end. I have my position, and I generally find the arguments from "my side" to be way more convincing, and I find the most offensive posts come from "the other sides". But all in all I'm just completely sick of all this "fan vs fan" madness Bioware has brought upon us. Is that what anyone would want?
Yes, I would have wished for a more "traditional" ending to what I never found to be a very innovative story. Would a generic "you win" ending in many variations with the option for a "you lose" scenario have hurt the franchise, or honestly disappointed those who now favour what we have now? I don't know for sure, I don't think so.

What we have now is so far from the "discussing the endings with other fans" I'd imagined before release that at times I could almost cry. I don't think the endings are well written, or that they fit the trilogy, and they are definitely unhealthy for the community/fanbase. Those who are still actively discussing the game seem to be deadlocked in some kind of ideological trench warfare, and that's not what I think a game trilogy like Mass Effect should achieve. I'm not even saying videogames shouldn't have the ability to achieve that, but it's my strong belief that Mass Effect shouldn't. 

A very good and passionate post. Unfortunately the cancerous mess, stemming from the starbrat out to the endings doesn't look like being addressed so i think it highly likely the community will continue to tear itself apart until history buries this atrocity in the dirt.