582 réponses à ce sujet

[Wayning_Star]

note: notice how the validity of the catalsyt information is left unheeded for real time ' socialized ' specifics for realtime old earth historical theory. All wrought from empty cups of speculation.

Still, bioware goes unscathed in the OP suggestion of 'designed' anti whatever, ends up anti synthesis speculation.

my favorite being ""It is a way of thinking that helps ideologues, who want to disguise their ideas as unavoidable facts of nature, get credibility."" Of course we're expected to believe that the catalyst is one of those 'ideologues'..eventhough it's just a machine that happened to watch countless cycles over millions of years.

The catalysts' credibility is now 'adjustable', to fit speculation, in realtime, with reinforcment of old earth history buffs..

[Clayless]

Don't look for political meanings in (media).

[vonSlash]

Pessimistic though the idea may be, it's ultimately more honest than the belief that humanity (and by extension, the other races in ME, who all reflect aspects of human personality) can be pefectly accepting of diversity. It's simply human nature to divide the world into "them" and "us" and to despise or look down upon "them". The "us" group can be pretty diverse itself, but never universal.

[frostajulie]

o Ventus wrote...

For a while I thought I was the only one who saw how horrifically racist the ending premise is.

I chose to ignore it since I KNOW as awful as the ending is that couldn't be what they meant after giving us the magic of ME1 and 2.

[eddieoctane]

EntropicAngel wrote...

 Grow up, children.

To say that THE CATALYST'S point of view is BIOWARE'S point of view is nothing short of ignorance--and if not that, then stupidity.

It's called writing a villian, folks.

In addition, do you even know what they choice "Destroy" means? It means you reject that premise.

The game supports you being able to reject that premise.


It is not Bioware's mesage. You are wrong.

Well, based on comments made by certain devs indicating that at least some of them consider synthesis (aka eugenics aka the loss of diversity) is the best ending, it seems fairly accurate to say that BioWare and the Catalyst are in lock-step on this point.

As far as destroy "rejecting that premise", this issue present by the Catalyst is that the differences between organics and synthetics (quite literally, diversity) is the cause of conflict. Destroying the Catalyst and Reapers also kills off all synthetic "life" (the Geth, EDI, and assumbly the virtual alians as well as most if not all VIs). This loss off all synthetics is another slam to diversity. The only way to preserve the variation of life is to take control of the Reapers and then eventually start the cycle back up anyway. All endings ultimately reinforce that diversity is bad. And for that, the writers (or at least Mac and Casey) have shown a huge failing at being even moderately decent human beings.

[Wayning_Star]

stop gap last ditch effort to disqualify synthesis choice as anti something, anything..even the OP bases it all on what they 'think' the catalyst priorities are as to how human they might be..lol

Now to be all inclusive as if Bioware designed the ME games to be propagandistic. Plain bone crazy.

[SiriusXI]

steinvegard wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

steinvegard wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

 Grow up, children.

To say that THE CATALYST'S point of view is BIOWARE'S point of view is nothing short of ignorance--and if not that, then stupidity.

It's called writing a villian, folks.

In addition, do you even know what they choice "Destroy" means? It means you reject that premise.

The game supports you being able to reject that premise.


It is not Bioware's mesage. You are wrong.

No "Destroy" is embracing the premise, since it forces you, if you have saved the geth, to commit genocide. One culture destroys the other for peace. That is exactly the core of many modern nationalistic movements thinking. Bioware chose to bring such philosophy in to the game.

They then have to live with the fact that this kind of thinking does not exist outside of a real-world context, where such ideology have real world consequenses. Destruction of a culture, either through violence or assimilation is the only way lasting peace can be achieved through the story. If Bioware cant even stand by the political message of the ending that their artistic integrity apperantly demands of them, then I have little respect for their integrity.

If this wasnt the message of the ending, I would be happy to be corrected by them, but with what we have, it is the most valid interpretation I can see.

assimilation is what humans do, have been for about ever. How is that critical, in relation to the ME trilogy?

The only thing I see in the story here is how nature forces change through evolution, making for the eventual action of our enviornment to control us, even more directly. Supposedly 'intellectually' driven machines won't stand for your premise, so we have to change to accomadate them or wipe them out. This is all just another form/force of nature.

Got Evolution?

To claim that their politcal ideology represents a law of nature is part of the whole anti-multicultural philosophy. Ideology disguised as a law of nature also was a driving ideological force behind imperialism in the 19th-century, where evolution was used as an excuse for subjugating "less developed" cultures.(Though I am certainly not accusing Bioware of saying anything like that. Only that their central message seems to be diversity=unavoidable conflict in the end) 

They might not be aware that they are tapping into thoughts with some seriously problematic historical and cultural contexts, but they are none the less. Perhaps I am extra sensitive to it as a European, where nationalistic anti-diversity movements are growing, and their rhetoric is very similar to Star Childs(Whom we are told is a superior intelligence by the way) assertions in the end.

Dont even try to argue with these people. They just dont get it. The fact that biowares BEST ending is against diversity combined with the fact that EC shows us how BEAUTIFULLY it all works out when everyone has the same DNA, clearly shows what message Bioware wants to give us. I dont think their intentions were bad. I just think their writing is incedibly infantile and they didnt know what their message actually meant. Authors are responsible for their writings. No everything the main character says is necessarily what the writer thinks, but if it is represented as in ME3, then it is a clear case.

You wouldnt say what Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf is not the authors message, but just the message of the lyrical I in the text. Or take Edwar Bellay's Looking backward. You wouldn't say his utopin vision has nothing to do with his own thinking.

[Rip504]

One of the writers of the Mass Effect series, Patrick Weekes, posted a message on gaming website Penny Arcade critical of Bioware executive producer Casey Hudson and lead writer Mac Walters' handling of the creative process surrounding the ending. According to Weekes, who posted on the Penny Arcade forums using his well-known and attributed personal account "Takyris", Hudson and Walters locked him and the other writers out of production of the ending, personally chose the ending they preferred and refused to allow peer review (as had been done with previous chapters of the storyline) once the details of the planned ending were selected. Weekes stated that the ending was "entirely the work of our lead and Casey himself", who decided "they didn’t need to be peer-reviewed", with Weekes concluding "It shows."   


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_Effect_3

[LinksOcarina]

steinvegard wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

steinvegard wrote...

mackan__s wrote...

So you dont like that they show us the real world..?

No, as a historian, I have to say that Biowares paranoia about differencens in thinking leading to unavoidable(It can, but usually doesn`t) conflict have no empircal evidence backing it in the real world. That is just cynisim.The lazy persons philosophy.

Also a historian here, but considering that differences often become a catayst to conflict is commonplace, doesn't that follow the cyclical logic that some historians postulated over the centuries.

Take Arnold Toynbee for example, his entire meta-history is about how certain paradigms are completey unaviodable because it is a cyclical nature. Others such as Oswald Spengler have proposed such theories to vary degrees of certainty, and most historians today deal with a more contextual approach through numerous fields to uncover theories now. We see this in Mass Effect 3 in a literal sense until the paradigm is broken, and Shepard using a more unconventional approach in attempting to unite the races for a common cause. 

We also see the exact opposite of this, as you say, usually not leading to this conclusion. In-game as well, the fact that you can unite the races in a large-scale conflict against a singular threat is somewhat against this theory; the Geth/Quarian arc is exemplory of this to a large degree. If you unite the two together this goes against the entire anti-diversity message. 

As for the reapers, well the question then is are they alive, or a function? The catalyst sees them as a function, we may see them as alive, so it may depend on the personal philosophy of the player moreso than the choices given, which in turn is a whole other philosophical conundrum. But the issue really lies in not with the finality of the situation, but changing the fate of the situation, which is what the ending actually promotes. You break the cycle one way, or another. The question then becomes do you break it for all time, or do you break it on the short term, depending on how you read into things. 

I think differences are more often perceived as the catalysts than they actually are. Usually you can find some specific material cause for conflicts. But when the conflict is already going, the differences comes so much to the forefront, that they often start to seem like the original reason

I tend to actively try to avoid seeing historical events in a cyclical context(Or as part of any larger pattern at all really, Though it is often very tempting because it looks so elegant on paper when you can connect events a,b,c d etc...). There is certainly a proud tradition for doing so and the historians responsible have contributed a lot of value to the field. But ultimately I think we loose proper understanding of specific times and events if we treat them as part of cycles instead of studying them on their own terms. The pattern we think we are seeing to easily becomes the explanation of the events.

Spengler, in my view, treated history almost like a force of nature, with laws that could not be violated in the same way that gravity can not be violated, whitch is to close to mysticism for my taste. His original support for the ****-party(Even though he withdrew it later) shows to me the dangers of trying to view culture and history in that way. It is a way of thinking that helps ideologues, who want to disguise their ideas as unavoidable facts of nature, get credibility.  

True, but the catalyst also has hidden knowledge we don't have, being the fact that it was involved in countless cycles before it.

Even the term, cycle, is pretty much self-explanitory in this regard. Historically speaking its not a major aspect through much of anything other than pattern making, but it is still significant to learn to avoid the patterns. For example, China during the Qing Dynasty went thorugh patterns of behavior that, yes, while looking at them closely aren't exactly similar or even correct to say they are patterns, but in the overall context it is almost inevitable. the hundred days reform for example, we can percieve as a choice of China attempting to modernize depending on how we view it, but it was cut down by Emperess Dowager with ease because it was a threat to her power base. Yet, she kept some of the reforms made, mainly in education at the time, because it served her purposes as well.

Heck, its easy to say that Dowager was the villian since she lead the coup de tat, but there are a lot of reforms Youwei implemented that never would have worked in China at the time because of a lack of political and popular will. Not to mention interference with the British and French adding a layer of intricacy into things. So really, the reform likely came too little, to late to even be successful.  

So it's not really losing the understanding of the events but essentially locking them into a narrative of what occurs. That is all history really is, the telling of stories through evidence of what happened. In doing so certain things tend to be embellished or made romantic like that, unless if its like Toynbee and part of their philosophical study. But there is a difference in knowing the context vs the date, knowing why the hundred day reform failed vs the fact that it failed on September 21st. 

As to Mass Effect, it is somewhat romantic to see it all as a cycle in a sense. Of course there are nuances to it, which is what the Geth/Quarians can be considered as, a sort of exception to the rule. The fact that its completely traced to one person gives it a mythic quality to everything. That said, the Catalyst probably has seen the cycle occur through inevitability. Each time machines rise and each time organics fight. None ever really shoot for compromise in that regard either; one can argue knowing what we know about the Protheans, this may be a true fact, so it shapes the Catalysts point of view.

I just don't see it as a message for anti-diversity in that regard, but rather a message of expected behavior within the confines of the cycle, be it broken or not. Its more of a philosophical point based off of experince vs a true statement, if that makes sense. Kind of like how a person may be prejudice towards a group of people for any number of reason, from religion to just upbringing.

[eddieoctane]

LinksOcarina wrote...

As to Mass Effect, it is somewhat romantic to see it all as a cycle in a sense. Of course there are nuances to it, which is what the Geth/Quarians can be considered as, a sort of exception to the rule. The fact that its completely traced to one person gives it a mythic quality to everything. That said, the Catalyst probably has seen the cycle occur through inevitability. Each time machines rise and each time organics fight. None ever really shoot for compromise in that regard either; one can argue knowing what we know about the Protheans, this may be a true fact, so it shapes the Catalysts point of view.

I just don't see it as a message for anti-diversity in that regard, but rather a message of expected behavior within the confines of the cycle, be it broken or not. Its more of a philosophical point based off of experince vs a true statement, if that makes sense. Kind of like how a person may be prejudice towards a group of people for any number of reason, from religion to just upbringing.

The problem right there is that the Catalyst speaks in absolutes. One exception is all it takes. One straw shatters the camel's back, cuts the pieces out, pulverizes them, and then scatters each microscopic fragment into its own personal black hole.

And I don't see how the anti-diversity message is so difficult to comprehend. Synthesis and destroy deal with it outright. Control, if we asume the Catalyst is always right like the writers would have us do, will only result in Shep continuing the process based on the assumption that diversity is always flawed. Be it technophobia, xenophobia, or whatever mental disorder of Casey (and perhaps the rest of the team) manifested in the ending, the ending is logically flawed and morally reprehensible. The issues run through every possible ending, including refusal where it seems that the future cycle chose synthesis as well. 4 endings, pure bigotry.

[TheJediSaint]

Is it such a radical notion that perhaps Mass Effect 3's ending had no message whatsoever? That the ending carried no intrinsic meaning other than being the ending. What if we assume that everything that the Catalyst said was nothing more than vacuous philoso-babble that sounds like it's saying something but really wasn't?

Perhaps Bioware simply ran out of ideas. The "message" that some people seem to sense is little more than a result of all the white-noise generated by the sloppy, incoherent execution of the endings.

Modifié par TheJediSaint, 22 février 2013 - 04:10 .

[LinksOcarina]

eddieoctane wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

As to Mass Effect, it is somewhat romantic to see it all as a cycle in a sense. Of course there are nuances to it, which is what the Geth/Quarians can be considered as, a sort of exception to the rule. The fact that its completely traced to one person gives it a mythic quality to everything. That said, the Catalyst probably has seen the cycle occur through inevitability. Each time machines rise and each time organics fight. None ever really shoot for compromise in that regard either; one can argue knowing what we know about the Protheans, this may be a true fact, so it shapes the Catalysts point of view.

I just don't see it as a message for anti-diversity in that regard, but rather a message of expected behavior within the confines of the cycle, be it broken or not. Its more of a philosophical point based off of experince vs a true statement, if that makes sense. Kind of like how a person may be prejudice towards a group of people for any number of reason, from religion to just upbringing.

The problem right there is that the Catalyst speaks in absolutes. One exception is all it takes. One straw shatters the camel's back, cuts the pieces out, pulverizes them, and then scatters each microscopic fragment into its own personal black hole.

And I don't see how the anti-diversity message is so difficult to comprehend. Synthesis and destroy deal with it outright. Control, if we asume the Catalyst is always right like the writers would have us do, will only result in Shep continuing the process based on the assumption that diversity is always flawed. Be it technophobia, xenophobia, or whatever mental disorder of Casey (and perhaps the rest of the team) manifested in the ending, the ending is logically flawed and morally reprehensible. The issues run through every possible ending, including refusal where it seems that the future cycle chose synthesis as well. 4 endings, pure bigotry.

Actually no. That just makes it an outlier case without more evidence to back it up. Since the quarians/geth are in their infancy of coexisting if you go down that route, there is really no proof, nor time, to see how they fare. 

Destroy is the only one that really fits into that category, because it deals with a complete unknown regarding the finality of the situation. It could go bad in the future, if machines are built again. This is where it gets hairy and I would say its not a anti-diverse message, but rather a stop-gap where the races will take their chances for the future.

Synthesis however I think you are way off, since you charge it under the presumption that diversity is non-existant. If anything its the most meta-physical of the endings because its the most utopian, which of course is impossible to attain, so differences may still occur down the line in the galaxy. After all, that is inherent in nature, what makes us all different and unique is all of our points of view on things. The implications is that now there is an understanding of our differences and no desire to cause conflict. It is letting bygones be bygones, allowing diversity to flourish. 

[LinksOcarina]

TheJediSaint wrote...

Is it such a radical notion that perhaps Mass Effect 3's ending had no message whatsoever? That the ending carried no intrinsic meaning other than being the ending. What if we assume that everything that the Catalyst said was nothing more than vacuous philoso-babble that sounds like it's saying something but really wasn't?

Perhaps Bioware simply ran out of ideas. The "message" that some people seem to sense is little more than a result of all the white-noise generated by the sloppy, incoherent execution of the endings.

Not at all, but to that question, why does it matter if it does or not? 

It gives us something to think over, which makes it already something a lot stronger than other video games since it allows to think and question the issues raised. Even if that wasn't their intent, it was a byproduct of what we saw. It's like saying Citizen Cane wasn't intented to be dissected for its dynamic camera work, or The Silver Surfer isen't to be viewed as a Judeo-Christian allegory. It just is something that crops up.

[Armass81]

Rip504 wrote...

One of the writers of the Mass Effect series, Patrick Weekes, posted a message on gaming website Penny Arcade critical of Bioware executive producer Casey Hudson and lead writer Mac Walters' handling of the creative process surrounding the ending. According to Weekes, who posted on the Penny Arcade forums using his well-known and attributed personal account "Takyris", Hudson and Walters locked him and the other writers out of production of the ending, personally chose the ending they preferred and refused to allow peer review (as had been done with previous chapters of the storyline) once the details of the planned ending were selected. Weekes stated that the ending was "entirely the work of our lead and Casey himself", who decided "they didn’t need to be peer-reviewed", with Weekes concluding "It shows."   


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_Effect_3

I believe in this. It shows. Of course they would try to deny it, but really is this so hard to believe? The vision and the massive egos of two men, who could do "no wrong", overcame the fans wishes and a consistant ending. And then they patched over the errors after the damage had been done, or tried to.

Modifié par Armass81, 22 février 2013 - 04:28 .

[eddieoctane]

TheJediSaint wrote...

Is it such a radical notion that perhaps Mass Effect 3's ending had no message whatsoever? That the ending carried no intrinsic meaning other than being the ending. What if we assume that everything that the Catalyst said was nothing more than vacuous philoso-babble that sounds like it's saying something but really wasn't?

Perhaps BioWare simply ran out of ideas. The "message" that some people seem to sense is little more than a result of all the white-noise generated by the sloppy, incoherent execution of the endings.

It's possible that there was no "intended" meaning. But when no clear message is present, the idiosyncrasies of the writer(s) pop up. All the little seemingly benign yet actually racists bits of story slip through and coalesce at the ending. Either it's intention or it's not, but the result is the same. The anti-diveristy leanings of the story is still present. I'm not sure which case worries me more, though. Is an openly racist plot better or worse than one that manifests the objectionable content itself from the writer's subconscious?

[TheJediSaint]

LinksOcarina wrote...

*snip*

I am all for thought-provoking videogames.  However, I think the level of thinking that people are devoting to trying to find (or impose) meaning with Mass Effect 3's ending is giving it more credit than it deserves.  At least for me, ME3's ending is an example of poor storytelling, and as such, I don't want to encourage developers into thinking that they can get away with ending their stories with a narrative vacuum. 

Modifié par TheJediSaint, 22 février 2013 - 04:28 .

[LinksOcarina]

TheJediSaint wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

*snip*

I am all for thought-provoking videogames.  However, I think the level of thinking that people are devoting to trying to find (or impose) meaning with Mass Effect 3's ending is giving it more credit than it deserves.  At least for me, ME3's ending is an example of poor storytelling, and as such, I don't want to encourage developers into thinking that they can get away with ending their stories with a narrative vacuum. 

It's kind of like the Tolkien effect then. He had no intention of making an allegorical meaning to anything, but rather a historical fantasy. We put the meanings in place through the themes and eventual outcomes that we see. 

Truth be told, the story being poor or not is irrelevent for me. I get what you're saying, but honestly this type of storyelling, narrative vacuum's and what not, is fairly commonplace so I doubt its going to go away any time soon. And honestly, I found the endings to be fairly good when I first played it so, to each their own I guess. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 22 février 2013 - 04:32 .

[TheJediSaint]

eddieoctane wrote...


It's possible that there was no "intended" meaning. But when no clear message is present, the idiosyncrasies of the writer(s) pop up. All the little seemingly benign yet actually racists bits of story slip through and coalesce at the ending. Either it's intention or it's not, but the result is the same. The anti-diveristy leanings of the story is still present. I'm not sure which case worries me more, though. Is an openly racist plot better or worse than one that manifests the objectionable content itself from the writer's subconscious?

Or, as the way I see it, the audience can see meaning that isn't really there.   If you look at ME3's ending with your sensors tuned to finding a particular message, then you're likely to see it.    Because something that means nothing can mean anything.

Modifié par TheJediSaint, 22 février 2013 - 04:40 .

[Indy_S]

TheJediSaint wrote...

I am all for thought-provoking videogames.  However, I think the level of thinking that people are devoting to trying to find (or impose) meaning with Mass Effect 3's ending is giving it more credit than it deserves.  At least for me, ME3's ending is an example of poor storytelling, and as such, I don't want to encourage developers into thinking that they can get away with ending their stories with a narrative vacuum. 

I don't want anyone ever to get the idea that ending their stories with a narrative vacuum is a good idea.

[TheJediSaint]

LinksOcarina wrote...

It's kind of like the Tolkien effect then. He had no intention of making an allegorical meaning to anything, but rather a historical fantasy. We put the meanings in place through the themes and eventual outcomes that we see. 

Truth be told, the story being poor or not is irrelevent for me. I get what you're saying, but honestly this type of storyelling, narrative vacuum's and what not, is fairly commonplace so I doubt its going to go away any time soon. And honestly, I found the endings to be fairly good when I first played it so, to each their own I guess. 

Well, I do share Tolken's distaste for allegory, so that's probably why I see the endings the way I do.  Though I also don't believe that an audience's interpetation of a work needs to be consisent with the author's intent.  

But I get your point.   A lot of how people interpret the endings tends to come down to personnal taste. 

[eddieoctane]

TheJediSaint wrote...

eddieoctane wrote...


It's possible that there was no "intended" meaning. But when no clear message is present, the idiosyncrasies of the writer(s) pop up. All the little seemingly benign yet actually racists bits of story slip through and coalesce at the ending. Either it's intention or it's not, but the result is the same. The anti-diveristy leanings of the story is still present. I'm not sure which case worries me more, though. Is an openly racist plot better or worse than one that manifests the objectionable content itself from the writer's subconscious?

Or, as the way I see it, the audience can see meaning that isn't really there.   If you look at ME3's ending with your sensors turned to finding a particular message, then you're likely to see it.    Because something that means nothing can mean anything.

People's subconscious likes and hatreds slip out in the strangest of ways. I think to discount that well-known psychological phenomena is foolish. A person can see one random meaning. That's how Mark David Chapman turned Catcher in the Rye into a justification for murder. When many people see the same "hidden message", we need to question if it's not the auidence making crap up but the author's own private mental issues coming to light. Given how many people seem to notice the same issues in the ending, the latter seems to have a bit higher probability of being the truth.

[TheJediSaint]

eddieoctane wrote...

People's subconscious likes and hatreds slip out in the strangest of ways. I think to discount that well-known psychological phenomena is foolish. A person can see one random meaning. That's how Mark David Chapman turned Catcher in the Rye into a justification for murder. When many people see the same "hidden message", we need to question if it's not the auidence making crap up but the author's own private mental issues coming to light. Given how many people seem to notice the same issues in the ending, the latter seems to have a bit higher probability of being the truth.

There's an even more well-known phenomena of people seeing patterns where the are none.  That's pretty much where every conspiracy has its origin.  And that's what I see whenever someone claims to have figured out what ME3's ending means.   

Also, Catcher in the Rye was a terrible novel.

[nevar00]

You put WAY more thought into this than the writers ever did.

Someone played Dues Ex and went with that once they realized what a corner they had written themselves into.

[eddieoctane]

TheJediSaint wrote...

*snip*

There's an even more well-known phenomena of people seeing patterns where the are none.  That's pretty much where every conspiracy has its origin.  And that's what I see whenever someone claims to have figured out what ME3's ending means.   

Also, Catcher in the Rye was a terrible novel.

Freudian slip. What you really think slips out, despite not trying to make that actual point. Far more well known than the tendency for people to form conspiracy theories.

I agree that Catcher sucks, though. It was almost as bad as Moby Dick. I've really come to resent English teachers. Between being told that the most uninteresting pieces of literature are the greatest thing ever and that my opinons on a book are totally invalid unless I can find a "scholarly source" to back up what I think, I really can;t understand why I need 13 years of that crap.

Sorry, kind of got sidetracked there. I only broought up Salinger because no one sees any connection there with John Lenon besides one deanged killer.