617 réponses à ce sujet

[BatmanTurian]

jtav wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

jtav wrote...

Not romantic as in romanticizing something, but Romantic. It hearkens back to an earlier time before humanity discovered Reaper technology, and says we are better off if we don't have these artificial things in our lives. It's very Keats-ian really.

Again, that is on you, the person picking it, to see it that way.  There is no inharent motivation for picking destroy, other then it gets rid of a problem in an understandable and grounded way, with very defined consequences.   Anything beyond this is created by the player, becuase the chocie tiself doesnt give you anything else, motivations are self driven.

I'm not talking about what any individual player's motivation is. But there is a strong "and now we shall return to a humbler and more virtuous state" vibe in the epilogue. The idea that humanity is fine as it is very much present there. All meaning is created to some degree by the reader/viewer/player but I didn't create the Romantic vibes anymore then I created the religious imagery of Synthesis.

part of the point of destroy is destroying reaper technology because they had created it so that organics progressed along the paths of technology that the reapers desired. Legion says this outright. It's not a rejection of technology, it's a rejection of reaper technology and making way to progress technology down other paths than the reapers would have guided organics for their own ends. Destroy is about absolute freedom from the Reapers, physically, mentally and technologically.

Organics can do it on their own. they don't need cyborg graveyard spaceships telling them what to do not to mention that (although Ieldra and others hate to acknowledge it) it's a cold hard fact that Reapers were forged in terror and murder. Without the Reapers around, the galaxy can progress the way it desires rather than submit to annihilation just because they might create a self-aware synthetic that just might turn on them and kill them.

For all these reasons, without metagaming in the choice room and Shepard having faced everything against the Reapers, knowing what they've done to organics over the millennia,  even his homeplanet scourged and scoured, it really doesn't make sense for him/her to compromise with the enemy at the end or take over their forces. In fact, it smacks the face of everyone Shepard has lost, all of the billions lost this cycle, and all of the trillions lost in other cycles. It feels like the act of a traitor.

This is only my interpretation of course.

[Iakus]

jtav wrote...

Not romantic as in romanticizing something, but Romantic. It hearkens back to an earlier time before humanity discovered Reaper technology, and says we are better off if we don't have these artificial things in our lives. It's very Keats-ian really.

I don't know about "better off" so much as "we aren't ready yet"  We've seen a glimpse of what's possible, and how horribly it can all go wrong if we don't understand or misuse it.  Destroy removes the shortcut the Reapers provided, forcing the galaxy to continue to learn and devlop, until they can figure it out on their own.  Who knows, they may even end up finding another way.  One that agrees with them better.

[Iakus]

Ieldra2 wrote...

clennon8 wrote...
I see what you're saying.  I guess maybe that's why they find Destroy boring?

Not so. As I said, I find Destroy boring because it makes of the ME trilogy a story that can be summarized as "kill the evil monsters and go home to friends and family". Extremely conventional.

Conventional =/= boring.  If it was, people wouldn't like it.  Then it would cease to be conventional

[clennon8]

The more I think about it, the more I think Self Determination is completely disconnected from what you're saying. So, I guess I have to say I don't really see how you're arriving at "and now we shall return to a humbler and more virtuous state." Sorry to waffle, but I'm back to agreeing with Meltemph. That "vibe" is largely coming from you, not from anything implicit to the epilogue.

[Valdimier]

Ieldra2 wrote...

clennon8 wrote...
I see what you're saying.  I guess maybe that's why they find Destroy boring?

Not so. As I said, I find Destroy boring because it makes of the ME trilogy a story that can be summarized as "kill the evil monsters and go home to friends and family". Extremely conventional.

A valid point but not every time unconventional means good.

[Rip504]

Started with an opinion? Really?

[adayaday]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Definitely. It has potential. It's just that none of that potential is hinted at in the epilogue. Also, of course headcanon can make everything better.

What i ment is Destroy is the most popular(if you belive the polls)thanks to its simple nature,while synthesis takes alot of fire thanks to it potential(ambiguous nature),synthesis may be less boring but it far much more difficult to follow as a story.

Modifié par adayaday, 15 février 2013 - 10:47 .

[Ieldra]

iakus wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

clennon8 wrote...
I see what you're saying.  I guess maybe that's why they find Destroy boring?

Not so. As I said, I find Destroy boring because it makes of the ME trilogy a story that can be summarized as "kill the evil monsters and go home to friends and family". Extremely conventional.

Conventional =/= boring.  If it was, people wouldn't like it.  Then it would cease to be conventional

For me, the conventional tends to be boring. And conventional isn't actually popular because it's so interesting, but because it tends to affirm the majority's belief system. It creates no tension because almost everyone can basically agree that yeah, it's good. Or at least ok. Apart from a few contrarians like me.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 15 février 2013 - 10:50 .

[clennon8]

A transhumanistic near-utopia seems like a pretty boring setting to me.

Ultimately, though, whatever you could imagine that would make that scenario interesting is probably the same sort of thing that would make any scenario interesting.

[Meltemph]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

ME trilogy a story that can be summarized as "kill the evil monsters and go home to friends and family". Extremely conventional.

Only if you want to summarize it like that...but well, it is advantageous for you to do so, judging by your reasoning behind your choices. I mean, it your are going to simplify it like that, you are giving a lot of leeway to summarize it any way people want, so your point is lost on its own point.

Sophistry. If I took you seriously, then it'd all end with nothing we say having any meaning at all. I don't think it can be contested that the more everything else stays the same, the more killing the evil monsters and going home appears as the sole focus of the story. High EMS Destroy goes a long way towards that with having the relays repaired in fairly short order. Low EMS Destroy does not have that problem, but it has the stronger Romantic vibe.

I think you missed my point.  The point is, the only meaning behind destroy is the meaning you want it to have, in regards to choosing it, because it is so stright forward.  It is explained very well, and it is represented in a way that shows exactly what happened, without alagory.  Also, are you using sophistry as a defense to the endings or are you saying I am using it(If you are saying I am using it, you are not making any sense, since headcanon is sophistry, not me making practicle applications to a specific choice).  And again, just becuase you say you view it as x in no way proves or validates the idea any more then you personally thinking it.  Romantasizing on its own, on an inidvidual basis is fine, but trying to force or manipulate circumstanes for your justiifcation on your view of why it is romantic; is you trying to force your reasoning behind your decision to pick synthesis over others, which actually adds to my point.  

Your views on destroy is clearly colored by your desires for your romanasizing of snythesis, which is fine.  My only point is, you can in no way show that a specifc viewpoint can be added onto destroy, outside of what is exactly there.  You cant apply your own personal rationalizing of motivations to a decision, on everyone, because you are limiting your outlook on specific choices, for the sole purpose of making synthesis look better or atleast in a somewhat specific light.

Modifié par Meltemph, 15 février 2013 - 10:56 .

[Alexius]

It's probably late to point out that "boring" is not an argument, it's an opinion.

But there ya go.

[dreamgazer]

clennon8 wrote...

A transhumanistic near-utopia seems like a pretty boring setting to me.

Almost said the same myself. 

Unless, of course, it descends into a dystopia following the apex.

[BatmanTurian]

Ieldra2 wrote...

iakus wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

clennon8 wrote...
I see what you're saying.  I guess maybe that's why they find Destroy boring?

Not so. As I said, I find Destroy boring because it makes of the ME trilogy a story that can be summarized as "kill the evil monsters and go home to friends and family". Extremely conventional.

Conventional =/= boring.  If it was, people wouldn't like it.  Then it would cease to be conventional

For me, the conventional tends to be boring. And conventional isn't actually popular because it's so interesting, but because it tends to affirm the majority's belief system. It creates no tension because almost everyone can basically agree that yeah, it's good. Or at least ok. Apart from a few contrarians like me.

Writers write stories that are conventional to sell and make money. The unconventional is looked upon as novelty and may in time be accepted but some things are too unconventional to be mainstream because of their inherent nature and the prevailing attitudes and norms. Bioware is out to make money, so of course they would create what you would deem a conventional (and overdone) ending. It's an overdone trope because it works and gives a payoff. This payoff = $$$ to the creator. It's simple, really.

[Ieldra]

clennon8 wrote...
A transhumanistic near-utopia seems like a pretty boring setting to me.

The end of the Synthesis epilogue hints at the exploration of what we can become. How is that not interesting? It also hints at integrating the knowledge of a billion years of civilization. As for the utopian theme, I can't see all that happening without conflict. Without large-scale war, maybe, but not without conflict.

Ultimately, though, whatever you could imagine that would make that scenario interesting is probably the same sort of thing that would make any scenario interesting.

See above. I don't need to add things there, though of course I add more. As for Destroy, I can see one very obvious direction this can go: civilization needs to explore the space between the relays, which has been overlooked by countless civilizations for a billion years because the relays have always provided the seeds around which civilizations developed. Unfortunately, the epilogue doesn't even vaguely hint at that.

[dreamgazer]

Ieldra2 said ...

As for the utopian theme, I can't see all that happening without conflict. Without large-scale war, maybe, but not without conflict.

Between whom, and for what reason?

Modifié par dreamgazer, 15 février 2013 - 11:09 .

[ruggly]

dreamgazer wrote...
Almost said the same myself. 

Unless, of course, it descends into a dystopia following the apex.

If synthesis is ever made canon, that is probably the only way I'd ever play it as a sequel.

[Ieldra]

@BatmanTurian:
You're telling me nothing new. Of course it was to be expected that there would be a mainstream ending option in Mass Effect 3. But accepting its likely presence or even its necessity from a business point of view does not mean I have to like it, or find it interesting.

[BatmanTurian]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@BatmanTurian:
You're telling me nothing new. Of course it was to be expected that there would be a mainstream ending option in Mass Effect 3. But accepting its likely presence or even its necessity from a business point of view does not mean I have to like it, or find it interesting.

I know. It's your opinion and you are entitled to it.

[Unschuld]

AlexiusDAlex wrote...

It's probably late to point out that "boring" is not an argument, it's an opinion.

But there ya go.

Personally I found the fact that "boring" was the OP's most compelling  argument against choosing destroy hilarious.

Modifié par Unschuld, 15 février 2013 - 11:15 .

[ElSuperGecko]

If Synthesis were to be made canon (lol), then surely any sequel must be about the desperate struggle of the people of the galaxy to find some way - any way - to reverse the horrifying process, restore their species and/or end their torment?

[Meltemph]

the epilogue doesn't even vaguely hint at that.

That is probably the point. Destroy opens up any possibility, even focusing on transhuman motives to improve the human condition. Between ME1 and the end of ME3, the amount learned from these event has a fairly obvious increase to the overall understanding of technology and genetics.

The open-endedness of the destroy ending is a good thing, because it is an ending without restrictions, it allows the MEU to go anywhere it wants. The other endings need to be specific because it is more about not allowing the direction of the MEU to be endless, but specific.

All that is speculation, but it leads into my point of, destroy is only as boring or as amazing as you want it to be. Destroy being boring would be advantageous to choose something else; you don't find it the least bit suspect that you derive destroy in a way that makes your decision of synthesis easier, at least somewhat of a specific you might want to be aware of?

[Ieldra]

dreamgazer wrote...

Ieldra2 said ...

As for the utopian theme, I can't see all that happening without conflict. Without large-scale war, maybe, but not without conflict.

Between whom, and for what reason?

You have a large body of knowledge covering a multitude of viewpoints newly integrating into civilization, and you are telling me you cannot see the potential for ideological conflict? You have a wide range of possibilities for self-enhancement. This will add a whole layer of cultural diversity as different factions embrace different "enhanced" lifestyles. More cultural diversity means more conflict potential.

@Meltempth:
You need some ground to speculate from. Otherwise you're just creating stuff in a vacuum. A broad outline of the kind of future you're creating is necessary to trigger your imagination, or things just fray into randomness.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 15 février 2013 - 11:21 .

[ruggly]

I wonder, would the Reapers then swoop in to quell the conflict? Or just stay neutral. Could they even stay neutral, you think different groups would want their help.

[BatmanTurian]

Ieldra2 wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Ieldra2 said ...

As for the utopian theme, I can't see all that happening without conflict. Without large-scale war, maybe, but not without conflict.

Between whom, and for what reason?

You have a large body of knowledge covering a multitude of viewpoints newly integrating into civilization, and you are telling me you cannot see the potential for ideological conflict? You have a wide range of possibilities for self-enhancement. This will add a whole layer of cultural diversity as different factions embrace different "enhanced" lifestyles. More cultural diversity means more conflict potential.

Wouldn't that be more likely to create a more homogenized culture? Cultural diversity happens in isolation. If there is no isolation anymore and everyone is sharing everything, everything becomes the monoculture.

[adayaday]

Ieldra2 wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Ieldra2 said ...

As for the utopian theme, I can't see all that happening without conflict. Without large-scale war, maybe, but not without conflict.

Between whom, and for what reason?

You have a large body of knowledge covering a multitude of viewpoints newly integrating into civilization, and you are telling me you cannot see the potential for ideological conflict? You have a wide range of possibilities for self-enhancement. This will add a whole layer of cultural diversity as different factions embrace different "enhanced" lifestyles. More cultural diversity means more conflict potential.

umm...no because starbart suggests it's no longer possible,you know with evolotion peak,and complete understand and such.